Please objectively tell me the realities for T3, T4 grads? Forum

[dingbat]

I simply cannot comprehend logic games no matter how it is explained to me.

I want to work in criminal defense and I would ideally like to work for the PD office during law school and eventually get a position there and take advantage of LRAP.

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

[rad lulz]

.

[shoeshine]

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

[dingbat]

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

I already have taken law school classes.

[sunynp]

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

I already have taken law school classes.

But you aren't in law school? Either way you are wrong and shoeshine is right.

[dingbat]

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

I already have taken law school classes.

But you aren't in law school? Either way you are wrong and shoeshine is right.

When I studied for my MBA I took a lot of classes at the law school.
Not only that, for my job from time to time I've had to analyse various legal issues, predominantly pertaining to tax law and related issues. In one case, the partner at XYZ law firm asked me if he could use the flowchart I developed (regarding a complex issue) in lectures that he gave at various law schools.

I also am of the opinion that people have different abilities.
Personally, my athletic abilities are non-existent and I have lousy hand-eye coordination (to use a clear example)
If someone like me were to pursue a career as a professional athlete, it would be ill-advised, but so be it - there's no harm in it.
However, if someone like me were to pursue a career in surgery, that would be very dangerous and I think I should steer clear of it.

I don't mean to be high and mighty, but not everything is for everyone. Logic games are not just an indicator of how well a person is at logic games, but how good a person is at logic. This has many real-world applications, as it really is a matter of how well you can piece together various clues.
A criminal investigation, for example, often involves a lot of clues (evidence), which, when taken together, lead to a certain conclusion. That is a logic game. If you can figure out that certain clues don't fit the conclusion, then you can figure out that the client didn't do it.
(or, if you can sow doubt into the minds of the juror that the clues don't fit the conclusion, then there's reasonable doubt)
On that same note, understanding the logic of it will give you knowledge of whether certain evidence, if inadmissible, would make the case unwinnable for the prosecution

[Br3v]

Only hope is study for LSAT, exceed personal expectations which I feel are set low in regards to lsat

[MrAnon]

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

I already have taken law school classes.

But you aren't in law school? Either way you are wrong and shoeshine is right.

When I studied for my MBA I took a lot of classes at the law school.
Not only that, for my job from time to time I've had to analyse various legal issues, predominantly pertaining to tax law and related issues. In one case, the partner at XYZ law firm asked me if he could use the flowchart I developed (regarding a complex issue) in lectures that he gave at various law schools.

I also am of the opinion that people have different abilities.
Personally, my athletic abilities are non-existent and I have lousy hand-eye coordination (to use a clear example)
If someone like me were to pursue a career as a professional athlete, it would be ill-advised, but so be it - there's no harm in it.
However, if someone like me were to pursue a career in surgery, that would be very dangerous and I think I should steer clear of it.

I don't mean to be high and mighty, but not everything is for everyone. Logic games are not just an indicator of how well a person is at logic games, but how good a person is at logic. This has many real-world applications, as it really is a matter of how well you can piece together various clues.
A criminal investigation, for example, often involves a lot of clues (evidence), which, when taken together, lead to a certain conclusion. That is a logic game. If you can figure out that certain clues don't fit the conclusion, then you can figure out that the client didn't do it.
(or, if you can sow doubt into the minds of the juror that the clues don't fit the conclusion, then there's reasonable doubt)
On that same note, understanding the logic of it will give you knowledge of whether certain evidence, if inadmissible, would make the case unwinnable for the prosecution

*

[Br3v]

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

I already have taken law school classes.

But you aren't in law school? Either way you are wrong and shoeshine is right.

End this and get back on topic for OP. dingbat your wrong, shoeshine why continue it.

[bdm261]

I simply cannot comprehend logic games no matter how it is explained to me.

I want to work in criminal defense and I would ideally like to work for the PD office during law school and eventually get a position there and take advantage of LRAP.

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses on the LSAT. I am doing quite well in the LR and RC sections, I am getting at least 50% of my LR and RC practice sections correct and that's a low estimate.

Also, I'm 26 now. I couldn't do algebra or write a paper well when I was in high school, those things naturally came to me as I got older.

I am taking an Intro to Logic class which might be the key to understaning these LG.

Some of the logic games I have been able to finish completely and only score one or two wrong on. I am mostly weak in terms of sequencing/matching/distribution games.

[seancris]

TLS convention wisdom is that a well-trained monkey could go -4 on logic games.

You owe it to yourself to confirm that these guys are wrong before going to some TTTT with horrible prospects and hoping you can pull down a thankless PD gig before you have to start making loan payments.

Buy a powerscore LG bible for $30 on amazon. Work through it, and see if you improve at least somewhat on LGs. If you do, then you've proven that a little training can result in a higher LSAT score and thus better prospects.

And every single point on this exam can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. For example, I had a 4.0 and an above median score (163) when I applied to a T1 school that I was hoping to attend. My peers who had 3.5s and 164's got 30k+ in scholarships, and I didn't get a dime. A single question on the LSAT was worth more to law schools than hundreds of exam questions throughout my undergrad career. GPA becomes more and more irrelevant with every LSAT point.

If you break 165 you'll be looking at scholarships to T2 and probably some T1 schools. That's like -17 on the LSAT. It's not easy, but it should be attainable after three tries and all those months of prep.

[shoeshine]

Douchey Speech

I feel so bad for the people that are going to go to school with you. You are the type of person that people hate in law school. The worst part is you don't even realize why you are a douche. How are you going to talk shit to someone when you can't even get into a T10? Enjoy getting median pawned at Fordham.

[rad lulz]

.

[johansantana21]

Douchey Speech

I feel so bad for the people that are going to go to school with you. You are the type of person that people hate in law school. The worst part is you don't even realize why you are a douche. How are you going to talk shit to someone when you can't even get into a T10? Enjoy getting median pawned at Fordham.

I'm not at a top 14 and I talk shit to people all the time breh

But you have a jerb.

[dingbat]

Douchey Speech

I feel so bad for the people that are going to go to school with you. You are the type of person that people hate in law school. The worst part is you don't even realize why you are a douche. How are you going to talk shit to someone when you can't even get into a T10? Enjoy getting median pawned at Fordham.

What makes you think I can't?

I'm not at a top 14 and I talk shit to people all the time breh

But you have a jerb.

Me too. I hope one day you have clients who treat you as bad as the IBankers I worked with treated their lawyers.

[hung jury]

1. I taught the LAST. A large % of 170+ scorers start in the 140s and 50s.

2. T3 and 4 schools are usually not the best option. Exception is for those schools which own regions but don't place into NYC (Wyoming, Texas Tech).

This is the right answer. There are a small handful of cheap schools that place well into areas other schools don't place into because they are off the radar of most students; if you're happy with a 40-50k salary and being a local lawyer in such an area, you have ties to the area, AND you don't have to pay a lot for the degree, there are a few schools that can do that for you. The vast majority of t3s/t4s don't fit this model.

I started by getting about 10% of the answers right on logic games. I ended with a 179. Don't give up until you've exhausted all resources.

[rbgrocio]

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

WTF is this. Get off your high horse. You are a 0L. You know nothing about the law.

Logic games are only a clear indicator of how good you are at logic games.

Seriously STFU until you have at least taken a fucking law school class.

The entire LSAT is an indicator of NOTHING.

[splitbrain]

OP I'll run TJSL's numbers for the class of 2010 to give you an objective idea of why it's a bad idea:

Only 69/221 (31.2%) graduates reported FT bar-passage-required employment 9 months after graduation. 124/221 (56%) graduates reported having full time employment of any kind. Finally, 19/221 (8.6%) graduates reported being unemployed and seeking work.

Worse yet, they only had 1/3 (33%) of their 2011 class actually pass the CA bar in July.

I'll compare this against other schools in Southern CA (Southwestern, USD, and USC or UCLA) in a follow-up post to further emphasize the point.

[EMZE]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=157855

Didn't see the above linked, but username - areyouinsane - talks about the realities for TTT grads, along with T14 grads who do poorly.

ETA: This is obviously a subjective opinion, but at least it is coming from someone who has been there.

[splitbrain]

More fun facts:

UCLA (#15): 7.8% clerkships / 75.9% FT employed / 1.7% unemployed and seeking / 85% July 2011 bar passage / 5.3% 1L attrition
USD (#65): 2.8% clerkships / ??? FT employed / 1.3% unemployed and seeking / 76% July 2011 bar passage / 7.1% 1L attrition
Southwestern (#129): 0.7% clerkships / 67.9% FT employed / 2.4% unemployed and seeking / 64% July 2011 bar passage / 9.3% 1L attrition
TJSL (N/A): 1.4% clerkships / 59.3% FT employed / ~10.6% unemployed and seeking / 33% July 2011 bar passage / 31.4% 1L attrition

It's not that EVERYONE fails at finding decent jobs from a TTT or a TTTT, but why would you make it THIS hard on yourself? 1/3 students get kicked out or drop out after 1L, and only 1/3 of last year's graduating class even passed the bar. And to add insult to injury, 94% of TJSL's graduating class had an average debt of $153,006 (CA average is 86% @ $124,593).

[mattviphky]

I was in your situation this time last year. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=149790

[ColtsFan88]

I have literally the same GPA as you. My first recorded LSAT was a 152. I studied my ass off and eventually pulled off a 177. I'm heading to Georgetown in the fall.

Don't sell yourself short. The only thing holding you back from going to a tier 1 school is your own will and desire.

[mattviphky]

I have literally the same GPA as you. My first recorded LSAT was a 152. I studied my ass off and eventually pulled off a 177. I'm heading to Georgetown in the fall.

Don't sell yourself short. The only thing holding you back from going to a tier 1 school is your own will and desire.

Good God

[TaipeiMort]

140-something/70 minutes on games to 172.

[Favre4Prez]

I simply cannot comprehend logic games no matter how it is explained to me.

I want to work in criminal defense and I would ideally like to work for the PD office during law school and eventually get a position there and take advantage of LRAP.

I feel sorry for your future clients. If you're unable to figure out logic games, how are you going to figure out how different pieces of evidence fit together?
Either you can figure out causality from disjointed clues, or you can't.
There's no harm in not having a certain ability, but there is harm in putting someone else's life on the line based thereupon.

Piecing together what did or did not happen tends to be one big logic game, so unless you plan on only representing admittedly guilty clients, or hope to get every case thrown due to a technicality, please do not go into criminal defense

I don't quite understand/agree your argument dingbat. I myself always struggled with games and missed 9 questions on the games section of my highest LSAT. I thought I had a better handle on games than I actually did; and come test day, combined with nerves, I struggled with a notoriously difficult games section. But, I only missed a combined nine ofther questions on the remaining sections of the test. Does this mean that if I can even make it through law school (what kind of a dummy goes -9 on LG, right?), and I can secure gainful legal employment (what kind of person with an LSAT below 170 gets a job these days?), I am going to make a horrible attorney and do a serious diservice to my clients and the legal profession as a whole? So by your logic, now the LSAT is not a reliable metric for one's future success as a law student and attorney. Instead, the logic games section of the LSAT has taken its place. Fantastic.