deletd Forum

[jaysnooginz]

And TLS is not bad for applicants, law students, or the legal profession. There is a multitude of great advice on this forum. If it were heeded by a large majority of law school applicants, we would have less bad law schools, less people with 150K$$$$$ debt to a TTT with no job prospects, etc.

[benwyatt]

Post removed.

[NotMyRealName09]

How bout we all stop using the word aspie.

Yeah. Name calling is for children. You all (ok some of y'all) talk shit, but when the - shall we say - socially challenged among us need some legal help and have deep, deep fucking pockets, you'd do well to learn that people pleasing requires pleasing all kinds. No one drops the "aspie" term without a negative connotation. But you know what? When my firm gets together in some BS forced social gathering, and I come across someone who I know from experience is socially awkward, who clearly hates being there - I make it a point to just be cool, lead the conversation, and take genuine interest in that person, and keep it casual. People in shells may just be good at hiding their innate awesomeness.

keepin it cool with all the weirdos for all us sinners

I'm a true humanitarian.

[Aquila]

I think TLS is good. Without TLS i would be going to a T2 with hopes of biglaw. Instead, I will be retaking for my 3rd with a much better studying strategy! 170+ or bust

[Clemenceau]

When someone says "anyone could score 170+ with enough studying!" I get jealous that they haven't spent as much time around dumb people as I have.

[Aquila]

When someone says "anyone could score 170+ with enough studying!" I get jealous that they haven't spent as much time around dumb people as I have.

Agreed not everyone can do 170 plus

[03152016]

yea i taught lsat and i'm as sure as i could be that not everyone can score 170+

As a fellow LSAT instructor, I wouldn't quite agree with you here.
I think that everyone could score 170+, but for some people the time and effort that required to score in that range is unreasonable. I'm of the opinion that almost no one should prep for the LSAT for more than a few months. After that point, you're trying to get into schools where you're likely to fail anyway.

how long have you been teaching lsat

[jbagelboy]

yea i taught lsat and i'm as sure as i could be that not everyone can score 170+

As a fellow LSAT instructor, I wouldn't quite agree with you here.
I think that everyone could score 170+, but for some people the time and effort that required to score in that range is unreasonable. I'm of the opinion that almost no one should prep for the LSAT for more than a few months. After that point, you're trying to get into schools where you're likely to fail anyway.

how long have you been teaching lsat

also, the bolded is absolutely ludicrous

[benwyatt]

Post removed.

[twenty]

TLS is a fantastic resources for applicants, with a few caveats. Advice changes drastically from year to year based on LST's latest numbers - but LST's numbers are reflective of decisions people made several years before. Advice in 2011-2012 looked like "there's no difference between Michigan and NYU except that NYU will place you at a better firm - you still have to be above median at both schools"; but now there's a noticeable difference in how deep firms will go into class rankings. Furthermore, TLS doesn't pay nearly enough attention to class size cuts/expansions. A 20% cut in class size can result in a massive difference for an incoming class' success in the job market (not necessarily OCI), but LST's numbers won't reflect that until after an applicant has already made their decision. All said and done, though, TLS is pretty thorough.

[trey ohh five]

yea i taught lsat and i'm as sure as i could be that not everyone can score 170+

As a fellow LSAT instructor, I wouldn't quite agree with you here.
I think that everyone could score 170+, but for some people the time and effort that required to score in that range is unreasonable. I'm of the opinion that almost no one should prep for the LSAT for more than a few months. After that point, you're trying to get into schools where you're likely to fail anyway.

how long have you been teaching lsat

also, the bolded is absolutely ludicrous

+1. If someone is willing to put in the time and effort to score over 170 on the LSAT, they are probably willing to put in the time and effort to succeed in law school.

[03152016]

i've had students who, prior to working w/ me, grinded away for years without improvement
used the right materials, put in the requisite time, worked w/ other tutors, and still could not hit the 150s
many improved w/ me. a few did not
a rare case, but i am as certain as i could be that some students cannot score 170+

[03152016]

TLS is a fantastic resources for applicants, with a few caveats. Advice changes drastically from year to year based on LST's latest numbers - but LST's numbers are reflective of decisions people made several years before. Advice in 2011-2012 looked like "there's no difference between Michigan and NYU except that NYU will place you at a better firm - you still have to be above median at both schools"; but now there's a noticeable difference in how deep firms will go into class rankings. Furthermore, TLS doesn't pay nearly enough attention to class size cuts/expansions. A 20% cut in class size can result in a massive difference for an incoming class' success in the job market (not necessarily OCI), but LST's numbers won't reflect that until after an applicant has already made their decision. All said and done, though, TLS is pretty thorough.

ya twenty but just to clarify here, 2015 tls advice on nyu is p good, the 2011-2012 advice you quoted is ridic
it seems to me the quality of advice has truly improved from 2011 to now.
there has always been a disparity btwn m/n
never did one need to b above median @ n
at ocs 2009, when everything was exploding, n was still 70% offer, minus offers from mass mail, referrals, networking, etc
so @ least w/r/t that, i think it's ppl just being more informed nowadays

[shump92]

How bout we all stop using the word aspie.

People in shells may just be good at hiding their innate awesomeness.

TITCR

[mcmand]

...

[jaysnooginz]

i've had students who, prior to working w/ me, grinded away for years without improvement
used the right materials, put in the requisite time, worked w/ other tutors, and still could not hit the 150s
many improved w/ me. a few did not
a rare case, but i am as certain as i could be that some students cannot score 170+

There is no way just anyone can be taught to score 170+. It takes dedication, but dedication alone will not get you past 165 let alone 170.

[BigZuck]

What harm are you suggesting it causes? Specifically.

I still really really really want the OP to answer this.

I actually didn't have a specific answer in mind. I have my own personal critiques of law school, legal education, law firms, their hiring practices, law schools' relationship with law firms, (etc. etc., this list could go on forever). But I was curious to see what kind of self-reflection other users might engage in. For example, the kind of answer minnbills gave, which spoke to me in a big way. I didn't discover TLS until AFTER I got into the school I was aiming for, and I'm so glad for it because I would have been an anxious mess otherwise. Plus, I've avoided the site for similar reasons throughout 1L. But those aren't the only reasons to be critical of the culture here.

Although I think my question is profoundly important to ask, I actually don't want to get too specific about my critiques. I'd rather let people organically think of the issues they have and let that discussion unfold. If I try to shape the discussion it may end up unintentionally pushing out a viewpoint that had not been considered. So, in short, dear mod, I won't give you a straight answer.

That's cool, but I don't feel the need to answer a fishing expedition.

That's cool, your answer would have a lot of bias issues anyway. Don't take this thread so personally. Law schools are in their sorry state because of not only law firms, law professors, universities, alumni, and US News, but also because of the culture and behaviors we have as law students. If we're not thinking of how we can be doing better for the legal profession and for society as a whole (and I'm not sure the only answer to that is "Boo TTT, 170+ or bust"), then we're not being good students of the law.

Wind farters gonna wind fart

[A. Nony Mouse]

What harm are you suggesting it causes? Specifically.

I still really really really want the OP to answer this.

I actually didn't have a specific answer in mind. I have my own personal critiques of law school, legal education, law firms, their hiring practices, law schools' relationship with law firms, (etc. etc., this list could go on forever). But I was curious to see what kind of self-reflection other users might engage in. For example, the kind of answer minnbills gave, which spoke to me in a big way. I didn't discover TLS until AFTER I got into the school I was aiming for, and I'm so glad for it because I would have been an anxious mess otherwise. Plus, I've avoided the site for similar reasons throughout 1L. But those aren't the only reasons to be critical of the culture here.

Although I think my question is profoundly important to ask, I actually don't want to get too specific about my critiques. I'd rather let people organically think of the issues they have and let that discussion unfold. If I try to shape the discussion it may end up unintentionally pushing out a viewpoint that had not been considered. So, in short, dear mod, I won't give you a straight answer.

That's cool, but I don't feel the need to answer a fishing expedition.

That's cool, your answer would have a lot of bias issues anyway. Don't take this thread so personally. Law schools are in their sorry state because of not only law firms, law professors, universities, alumni, and US News, but also because of the culture and behaviors we have as law students. If we're not thinking of how we can be doing better for the legal profession and for society as a whole (and I'm not sure the only answer to that is "Boo TTT, 170+ or bust"), then we're not being good students of the law.

I'm not taking it personally, but I feel like if you're proposing this website is bad for the legal profession it's on you to suggest why. I get some of the arguments, but bad for the legal profession is a new one.

[BigZuck]

I actually don't get any of the arguments, because I don't think the OP has put one forward. The closest thing I saw was "I agree with minnbills" which, at this point, is NAGL for a TLS poster to admit.

[Desert Fox]

[jaysnooginz]

As a fellow LSAT instructor, I wouldn't quite agree with you here.
I think that everyone could score 170+, but for some people the time and effort that required to score in that range is unreasonable. I'm of the opinion that almost no one should prep for the LSAT for more than a few months. After that point, you're trying to get into schools where you're likely to fail anyway.

how long have you been teaching lsat

also, the bolded is absolutely ludicrous

+1. If someone is willing to put in the time and effort to score over 170 on the LSAT, they are probably willing to put in the time and effort to succeed in law school.

If it takes you 6 months to learn what others do in 2 weeks of light study, you are going to get ur anus torn asunder.

Hell, studying doesn't even help for some people. I scored a 172 on my first ever practice test, got up to high 170s, scored a 168 on the real deal.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I actually don't get any of the arguments, because I don't think the OP has put one forward. The closest thing I saw was "I agree with minnbills" which, at this point, is NAGL for a TLS poster to admit.

You're right, OP hasn't put one forward at all, which is my whole problem with the exercise. Let's say that I can imagine some of the other arguments based on some of the things other posters have said, but I'm still at a loss to see how this all connects to the legal profession writ large. TLS isn't an independent entity, it's just a venue for people to communicate with each other.

[jbagelboy]

+1. If someone is willing to put in the time and effort to score over 170 on the LSAT, they are probably willing to put in the time and effort to succeed in law school.

If it takes you 6 months to learn what others do in 2 weeks of light study, you are going to get ur anus torn asunder.

idk man

try hards be trying hard out there. if you drill LSAT for 1+ year and take 60 PTs and break 170, you'll prolly also make like three property outlines, stay after class, demagogue a study group, ect. and claw your way to an A-. the anus tearing might not come till practice

but even then you can just double down & live in the office

it doesn't end until you keel over and die at 45 from decades of overextertion I guess

[twenty]

TLS is a fantastic resources for applicants, with a few caveats. Advice changes drastically from year to year based on LST's latest numbers - but LST's numbers are reflective of decisions people made several years before. Advice in 2011-2012 looked like "there's no difference between Michigan and NYU except that NYU will place you at a better firm - you still have to be above median at both schools"; but now there's a noticeable difference in how deep firms will go into class rankings. Furthermore, TLS doesn't pay nearly enough attention to class size cuts/expansions. A 20% cut in class size can result in a massive difference for an incoming class' success in the job market (not necessarily OCI), but LST's numbers won't reflect that until after an applicant has already made their decision. All said and done, though, TLS is pretty thorough.

ya twenty but just to clarify here, 2015 tls advice on nyu is p good, the 2011-2012 advice you quoted is ridic
it seems to me the quality of advice has truly improved from 2011 to now.
there has always been a disparity btwn m/n
never did one need to b above median @ n
at ocs 2009, when everything was exploding, n was still 70% offer, minus offers from mass mail, referrals, networking, etc
so @ least w/r/t that, i think it's ppl just being more informed nowadays

I'm not actually going for "oh, we're so much better now" (although we are definitely in a better position post-LST), even the LST information we had from 2012 was based on "ITE" numbers and the prevailing wisdom was that the only difference between NYU's placement power and Michigan's placement power was that NYU put above-median kids at "better" biglaw firms. Hindsight being 20/20, it's easy to say that NYU is significantly better than Michigan for biglaw, but that hasn't always been the case. As great as LST is, the information lag is significant enough to royally fuck over prospective students. I balk at the idea of suggesting that TLS become more risk-averse, but I highly doubt that applicants realize that they're making serious decisions based on information that, by definition, is fairly outdated.

[03152016]

i'm saying that the advice was erroneous, info lag or no
the prob was that the wrong conclusion was drawn from limited data
info lag prob exacerbated the problem w/r/t incoming students, but the argument was always wrong no matter what time frame you looked at

so it's not that there is a noticeable difference in how deep firms will go now that was not present then. there was always a difference, it's just that the advice given on tls has gone from being incorrect on that point to being correct

anyways it's a minor point and not worth arguing abt