I got Biglaw from T2 AND YOU CAN TOO Forum

[WokeUpInACar]

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.

It's not "lucky" in the sense that someone just gets good grades by sheer fortuitousness, it's "lucky" in the sense that for any one person entering law school, it's nearly impossible to tell whether you are someone who is "talented" at taking law school exams, and if you do have that talent, you are indeed "lucky." Everyone thinks they are a special snowflake, and SOME PEOPLE ARE, it's just that self-assessment in this area is likely to be wildly inaccurate.

That, and there truly is a huge arbitrary element to law school grading.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

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.

Can you quote where I said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

[KMart]

I'm just here to tag because this is getting interesting .

[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.

Can you quote where I said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

Can you quote where I said that you said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

[Mal Reynolds]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

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.

Can you quote where I said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

Can you quote where I said that you said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

When you say "is a good decision" you seemed to be referring to a general situation.

If, instead, you meant "is a good decision" to mean "is a good decision for some subset of people who meet certain predetermined criteria," then I apologize for misreading your unclear post.

[FSK]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

You play your first hand for $200K? I did too.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

See this is what I'm talking about - the assumption that it's all just luck. That the kid with straight As benefitted from "arbitrary law school grading" in every single class.

Just do ignore the definition of "arbitrary" when it's the same kids' work that pulls the high grade every time.

[Mal Reynolds]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

See this is what I'm talking about - the assumption that it's all just luck. That the kid with straight As benefitted from "arbitrary law school grading" in every single class.

Just do ignore the definition of "arbitrary" when it's the same kids' work that pulls the high grade every time.

This is pretty bad. I don't think anyone would claim that people at the top of a law school class aren't doing the right things and that their hard work and skill go beyond luck. The problem is that you cannot accurately predict beforehand whether you will have the ability to be among those select few people who have this mix of traits that allow someone to succeed in law school. So you are really the one who doesn't understand where the lottery analogy comes in to play. You took a gamble because you had no idea whether your set of skills would sort you among the winners or the losers of the law school grading system.

[FSK]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

See this is what I'm talking about - the assumption that it's all just luck. That the kid with straight As benefitted from "arbitrary law school grading" in every single class.

Just do ignore the definition of "arbitrary" when it's the same kids' work that pulls the high grade every time.

I think enough arbitrary things happen that can derail a smart kid that worry should be brought. You vomit during your lsat? cancel. You vomit during a final & have to leave? Maybe you fail -- bye bye gpa.

Same thing with family emergencies, health issues, freak accients, etc. This kind of shit happened to me during one of my finals periods.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

See this is what I'm talking about - the assumption that it's all just luck. That the kid with straight As benefitted from "arbitrary law school grading" in every single class.

Just do ignore the definition of "arbitrary" when it's the same kids' work that pulls the high grade every time.

This is pretty bad. I don't think anyone would claim that people at the top of a law school class aren't doing the right things and that their hard work and skill go beyond luck. The problem is that you cannot accurately predict beforehand whether you will have the ability to be among those select few people who have this mix of traits that allow someone to succeed in law school. So you are really the one who doesn't understand where the lottery analysis comes in to play. You took a gamble because you had no idea whether your set of skills would sort you among the winners or the losers of the law school grading system.

Sure there was some risk, and I've never claimed otherwise. But the gamble was only the ~$10k I shelled out to take 1 semester's worth of classes, see the grades, and make an informed decision from there.

Characterizing the whole 3 years and the entire cost of law school as a gamble is faulty because there was considerably less risk after I knew how I would perform on LS exams.

All things considered, $10k isn't much compared to other common gambles people take on ideas they're passionate about (e.g. Starting a small business, going to undergrad, etc.). As a result, I just don't think it was that big a risk.

Now, maybe you're more risk averse, and that's fine; but don't mischaracterize how I actually made my decisions.

[Mal Reynolds]

Big goal post move there. Also laughable since OCI doesn't happen until after you've probably paid third semester's tuition.

[WokeUpInACar]

I have a passion for roulette. I'm not going to stop playing roulette because people tell me it's a bad idea. And I'm sure glad I didn't stop because I won more money than initially started with. Playing roulette at the casino isn't a bad choice for everyone, especially if you have a passion for it.

See this is what I'm talking about - the assumption that it's all just luck. That the kid with straight As benefitted from "arbitrary law school grading" in every single class.

Just do ignore the definition of "arbitrary" when it's the same kids' work that pulls the high grade every time.

This is pretty bad. I don't think anyone would claim that people at the top of a law school class aren't doing the right things and that their hard work and skill go beyond luck. The problem is that you cannot accurately predict beforehand whether you will have the ability to be among those select few people who have this mix of traits that allow someone to succeed in law school. So you are really the one who doesn't understand where the lottery analysis comes in to play. You took a gamble because you had no idea whether your set of skills would sort you among the winners or the losers of the law school grading system.

Sure there was some risk, and I've never claimed otherwise. But the gamble was only the ~$10k I shelled out to take 1 semester's worth of classes, see the grades, and make an informed decision from there.

Characterizing the whole 3 years and the entire cost of law school as a gamble is faulty because there was considerably less risk after I knew how I would perform on LS exams.

All things considered, $10k isn't much compared to other common gambles people take on ideas they're passionate about (e.g. Starting a small business, going to undergrad, etc.). As a result, I just don't think it was that big a risk.

Now, maybe you're more risk averse, and that's fine; but don't mischaracterize how I actually made my decisions.

Very few people possess the discipline to actually drop out after one semester solely because of poor grades.

[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.

Can you quote where I said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

Can you quote where I said that you said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

When you say "is a good decision" you seemed to be referring to a general situation.

If, instead, you meant "is a good decision" to mean "is a good decision for some subset of people who meet certain predetermined criteria," then I apologize for misreading your unclear post.

I'm not seeing what's unclear about what I said. Sorry I guess?

Hopefully this is clear: It is never a good idea to attend a school like Hastings with a goal of big law. Never. Ever. You personally made a bad decision. If you wanted big law you should have gone to a different, better school. Or, if the money/debt was meaningful to you, you should have just not gone to law school. It worked out for you and that's great but you have to judge that decision prospectively, not retrospectively.

Now, I want to make this point as well and I hope it is clear as day: you should be ashamed of yourself. If anything we should be working to ensure schools like Hastings are shut down, not encourage kids to attend them, logic be damned, just because they have BIG PASSION or BIG WORK ETHIC and those things can cop them BIG LAW. That's all bullshit man.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Big goal post move there. Also laughable since OCI doesn't happen until after you've probably paid third semester's tuition.

Seems like you're the one moving the goal posts from "get good grades" -> "Succeed at OCI"

[Mal Reynolds]

Big goal post move there. Also laughable since OCI doesn't happen until after you've probably paid third semester's tuition.

Seems like you're the one moving the goal posts from "get good grades" -> "Succeed at OCI"

Well since you went to school to get a biglaw job it seems reasonable to ask the question over that timeline.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Can you quote where I said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

Can you quote where I said that you said it was a good decision for everyone?

Hint - I didn't say that.

When you say "is a good decision" you seemed to be referring to a general situation.

If, instead, you meant "is a good decision" to mean "is a good decision for some subset of people who meet certain predetermined criteria," then I apologize for misreading your unclear post.

I'm not seeing what's unclear about what I said. Sorry I guess?

Hopefully this is clear: It is never a good idea to attend a school like Hastings with a goal of big law. Never. Ever. You personally made a bad decision. If you wanted big law you should have gone to a different, better school. Or, if the money/debt was meaningful to you, you should have just not gone to law school. It worked out for you and that's great but you have to judge that decision prospectively, not retrospectively.

Now, I want to make this point as well and I hope it is clear as day: you should be ashamed of yourself. If anything we should be working to ensure schools like Hastings are shut down, not encourage kids to attend them, logic be damned, just because they have BIG PASSION or BIG WORK ETHIC and those things can cop them BIG LAW. That's all bullshit man.

Is your life not working out or something BigZuck? I seem to have hit a nerve with you.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Big goal post move there. Also laughable since OCI doesn't happen until after you've probably paid third semester's tuition.

Seems like you're the one moving the goal posts from "get good grades" -> "Succeed at OCI"

Well since you went to school to get a biglaw job it seems reasonable to ask the question over that timeline.

It's interesting that you want to put the focus on my situation while simultaneously ignoring my outcome.

"You wanted biglaw, so let's look at that; but ignore the fact that you actually got biglaw..."

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Sure there was some risk, and I've never claimed otherwise. But the gamble was only the ~$10k I shelled out to take 1 semester's worth of classes, see the grades, and make an informed decision from there.

Characterizing the whole 3 years and the entire cost of law school as a gamble is faulty because there was considerably less risk after I knew how I would perform on LS exams.

All things considered, $10k isn't much compared to other common gambles people take on ideas they're passionate about (e.g. Starting a small business, going to undergrad, etc.). As a result, I just don't think it was that big a risk.

Now, maybe you're more risk averse, and that's fine; but don't mischaracterize how I actually made my decisions.

First thing I noticed was that you called attending undergrad a "risk."

Second thing I noticed was that you made the claim that the fact that other people make shitty decisions justifies your decision because it's a little less shitty.

Going to a T2 really is like starting a business--you have a 90% chance of failing because most people who do it don't have the skill to succeed. Except unlike starting a business, there's not a whole lot of upside (the best you can do is a job where everyone's miserable all the time).

[Mal Reynolds]

Big goal post move there. Also laughable since OCI doesn't happen until after you've probably paid third semester's tuition.

Seems like you're the one moving the goal posts from "get good grades" -> "Succeed at OCI"

Well since you went to school to get a biglaw job it seems reasonable to ask the question over that timeline.

It's interesting that you want to put the focus on my situation while simultaneously ignoring my outcome.

"You wanted biglaw, so let's look at that; but ignore the fact that you actually got biglaw..."

You are deflating how much of a risk you actually took. Because even getting good grades at a shit school like hastings is still a horribly precarious position to be in for biglaw hiring. So saying that $10k was the only amount of money you risked is hilarious. You wouldn't have gotten a job until a year later and that is yet another risk you seem to be ignoring: that you will have the right set of features/resume that hiring partners want to see. So it's more money and time than you were initially willing to admit you risked. This all just seems like post hoc rationalization.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

It's interesting that you want to put the focus on my situation while simultaneously ignoring my outcome.

"You wanted biglaw, so let's look at that; but ignore the fact that you actually got biglaw..."

If you bet your mortgage on double zero, and it hits, does that mean that betting your mortgage on double zero was a good idea?

[BigZuck]

No, I'm pretty content right now

But:
A) That's such a b.s. Internet response that you're trying to use so you don't have to respond to something substantively
B) My nerve is no more struck than it ever is when talking to a shill and/or unabashed head in the sand special snowflake who is deliberately trying to drag down other people. I just think that's messed up, you could actually damage a real life human's life here.

[reasonable person]

Hear, hear

[Adrian Monk]

going to stick up for onemorelawhopeful here

guys, mal, mono, zuck all you guys, c'mmon everybody here knows that you all went to t14 schools (zuck- i think texas? so, pretty much a top school), anyway, why the hell cant u just tolerate that someone like onemore got big law from a school like hastings? it seems that all you guys just cannot stand the thought that someone from lower tier 1 or tier 2 school got big law, so pretty much the same outcome that you guys will get (or hope to get) from a "top" school. Now, yes it was risky for onemore, he very well could not have gotten big law,as will majorty of lower of tier 1 and tier 2 students, but just for god sake appreciate the hardwork that guys like one more puts in to get where he is today. I dont have a problem with you all saying that he got lucky, he might have but the difference with me and you guys is that you all say he got ONLY lucky, and i am saying that he was hardworking AND lucky. so why are you all so adamant about taking away credit from someone who gets big law from not a top school?

[Mal Reynolds]

Really happy he got biglaw. But he's rationalizing and underestimating the time and money costs he put up in exchange. Advocating his path in the aggregate is why the law school scam exists in the first place.