"Quality" of students at differing law schools Forum

[06102016]

..

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Yeah but we're not talking about what separates the great from the truly elite. We're talking mostly about what separates the mediocre from the very good and the very good from the great (in terms of LSAT scores or law school grades... please don't read too much into these distinctions or assume I think they matter).

The recent trend of saying "it's about grit and determination, not talent!" is flame for a variety of reasons. First, it presupposes that single-minded devotion to a craft or area of achievement isn't strongly correlated with the same talent which allows people to be the best. Second, it assumes that that a capacity or compulsion to work isn't a "talent" i.e. an innate ability in and of itself.

also I really don't care how hard someone of diminished capacity works. They will encounter limits on the LSAT, and that's fine. Almost everyone does. At a certain point no amount of extra work will save you from a max score.

If you believe that hard work is a talent, then there is no way to have a debate.

The reason most people on here say hard work >>> talent is because most of us increased our LSAT scores by over ten points through hard work, not talent, then most of went to law school and witnessed first hand the sacrifices it takes to be top 10%.

When you are talking about the best 100 or so law schools, the vast majority of the students are very capable. The grades/best jobs go to students who earn them through hard work.

[06102016]

..

[Nebby]

Work ethic is a learned skill. One that some never learn.

[06102016]

..

[Nebby]

I'm really surprised after 4 pages this didn't evolve into a discussion of whether the hotties at T14 are better than TTT. That's what I was hoping for.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Yeah but we're not talking about what separates the great from the truly elite. We're talking mostly about what separates the mediocre from the very good and the very good from the great (in terms of LSAT scores or law school grades... please don't read too much into these distinctions or assume I think they matter).

The recent trend of saying "it's about grit and determination, not talent!" is flame for a variety of reasons. First, it presupposes that single-minded devotion to a craft or area of achievement isn't strongly correlated with the same talent which allows people to be the best. Second, it assumes that that a capacity or compulsion to work isn't a "talent" i.e. an innate ability in and of itself.

also I really don't care how hard someone of diminished capacity works. They will encounter limits on the LSAT, and that's fine. Almost everyone does. At a certain point no amount of extra work will save you from a max score.

If you believe that hard work is a talent, then there is no way to have a debate.

The reason most people on here say hard work >>> talent is because most of us increased our LSAT scores by over ten points through hard work, not talent, then most of went to law school and witnessed first hand the sacrifices it takes to be top 10%.

When you are talking about the best 100 or so law schools, the vast majority of the students are very capable. The grades/best jobs go to students who earn them through hard work.

I'm not saying hard work is a talent. I'm not taking away from the sacrifices people make to achieve. I am saying that some people have a much greater capacity to focus and use their time efficiently on what most would consider mentally demanding tasks. Whether you're accounting for this in the context of a multi-hour test or over the course of a semester's worth of studying (culminating in a multi-hour test), the capacity to focus, to sit down and do the work in a meaningful way, is a talent some people have and others don't. It's silly to push back on such a basic idea, and yet it's very "in" to do so.

I think there's also something to be said for the impact of personality/temperament, much of which is for pretty much set by the time you're a teenager (and probably sooner). Some people can work in isolation for longer without it having as great an impact on their mental health. Some people can cope better with the stress that legal study often entails. I think acting as though these factors aren't impacted by innate or nearly-innate traits independent of just "hard work" is kind of ridiculous.

edit: not to be defeatist. It doesn't matter. I may be having an argument that no one else is having, but I think there's a certain value in accepting your limitations instead of going to a higher level of education on the assumption that if you just work hard enough, you'll be okay.

I see the point you are trying to make and I appreciate it. For some, though, I'm sure it's super convenient to put down the books and say "well, I'm not well suited to concentrate long hours on difficult topics, so I'll just throw in the towel."

There are many people who are better/less suited for doing things they do not want to do, but a huge part of life is finding out whether or not you can accomplish anything, which always requires doing things you do not want to do.

[Holly Golightly]

I guess us NU kids are just such a slacktastic bunch since none of us worked very hard to get there.

[06102016]

..

[jbagelboy]

I guess us NU kids are just such a slacktastic bunch since none of us worked very hard to get there.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or what the point of this post is.

doing well on the LSAT alone just makes you a dumb slacker relative to those who try hard in school -> NU has a lot of splitters -> splitters didn't do well in school, just did well on the LSAT -> NU is full of slackers.

[06102016]

..

[jumpin munkey]

I don't totally understand the argument that minimizes the differences in quality of students between a T14 and a T2 by relying on the idea that a lot of kids at T2s just rando'ed the LSAT for a 160 and applied to Brooklyn (when if they'd prepped for awhile they could've gotten a 172 and NYU). The kind of person who takes the LSAT once, is satisfied, and applies to and accepts at a T2 is going to be seriously correlated with the type of person who doesn't do practice exams in law school and tries to memorize 3L outlines the Saturday before a Monday exam. Knowing the rules of the game you're playing is a big part of winning the game.

[IAFG]

I don't totally understand the argument that minimizes the differences in quality of students between a T14 and a T2 by relying on the idea that a lot of kids at T2s just rando'ed the LSAT for a 160 and applied to Brooklyn (when if they'd prepped for awhile they could've gotten a 172 and NYU). The kind of person who takes the LSAT once, is satisfied, and applies to and accepts at a T2 is going to be seriously correlated with the type of person who doesn't do practice exams in law school and tries to memorize 3L outlines the Saturday before a Monday exam. Knowing the rules of the game you're playing is a big part of winning the game.

Well, I know people who accepted their basically cold LSAT score then killed it in a lower-ranked law school than they would have gotten with some serious prep. So maybe that's what's informing DF's idea.

[09042014]

I don't totally understand the argument that minimizes the differences in quality of students between a T14 and a T2 by relying on the idea that a lot of kids at T2s just rando'ed the LSAT for a 160 and applied to Brooklyn (when if they'd prepped for awhile they could've gotten a 172 and NYU). The kind of person who takes the LSAT once, is satisfied, and applies to and accepts at a T2 is going to be seriously correlated with the type of person who doesn't do practice exams in law school and tries to memorize 3L outlines the Saturday before a Monday exam. Knowing the rules of the game you're playing is a big part of winning the game.

Who is making that argument

[jumpin munkey]

It's not just the kids who spurned top schools. Some kids who barely got in off the waitlist at UNC are just smarter than Harvard students. The LSAT is a pretty blunt measurement. Now that LSAT forum nerds study for 6 months, it's probably utterly worthless.

I was interpreting what I said from this -- maybe a misinterpretation on my part. To be fair, I don't really disagree with any of the above (aside from the worthless comment). Using LSAT medians as a raw measure of comparing kids at Brooklyn to kids at NYU is flawed because of retakes. A lot of the kids at Brooklyn could have done quite a bit better on the LSAT, whereas the NYU kids overall had LSAT scores closer to their max potential. But it doesn't seem outlandish to say that not taking the LSAT seriously is not a good sign for taking 1L seriously.

[Dafaq]

When I saw the word “quality” (in a LS context) I figured it was about intellect. From what I’ve seen regarding bar passage percentages, the higher ranked schools clearly outperform lower ranked schools. My experience is that LS doesn’t forge its way to the bar exam front, Barbri does. So, if every law student is on equal footing (via Barbri) then why are the top shelf schools producing much better results?

There was a recent story on ATL where two professors from lower ranked schools were livid because their bar passage percent was 50% or less. Even great coaches can’t win championships if their players are sucky. Not sure that this sports analogy works here, but it might.

[chipotle123]

Work ethic is a learned skill. One that some never learn.

Sure. Obviously.

"As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves"

Gandhi said this. Not trying to sound like some enlightened douche, but if you think that your past pretty much determines your future (work ethic, etc.) your are severely limiting yourself in life. Yea sure, a lot of people say they are gonna work their ass off for the first time in law school. Some people follow through on that and some people don't. Just like how some people say they're gonna go on a diet and quit smoking, some people make it happen. IMO it's all about your commitment to law school and getting past this "stuck in your ways" idea.

Again, just an opinion.

[lhanvt13]

There's a difference. There's shitheads at every school, but there definitely is a difference in the amount of shitheads.

[GMasters5]

From everyone I have met, both T14 and TTT, you are likely to find LS intolerable unless you stop giving a sh*t about what other people are doing.

Actually, life in general as well.

Worry about yourself.

Also, everyone is going to hate you. Having fun and doing well and law school do not need to be mutually exclusive, unless you are a terrible douche who just hates fun.

+1

[06102016]

..