How hard is it? Forum

[bjsesq]

Seriously disappointed by what this thread is about. Hope you don't end up at some flaccid law school, man.

[piccolittle]

Law school isn't hard, but doing well is hard. I had a pretty relaxing and fun 1L. Sure, it didn't get me anything better than median, but I'm probably healthier mentally than the kids who worked 10x as hard as I did and ended up with similar grades because they burned themselves out by exam day. Just my experience.

[TTRansfer]

I do want to be a lawyer (that's why I want to go to LS) but all the horror stories here at TLS make me wonder if it's really worth it. I want to be a lawyer but not at any cost.

How smart am I? Not sure. Which one is a better indicator of success GPA or LSAT?

Neither. I had a shit GPA and a shit LSAT and I pretty much crushed most of the competition at my TT (about 95% of the kids either had a much higher GPA than me, or at the minimum, a higher LSAT).

[JJJ123]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

[moneybagsphd]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

[PDaddy]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

+1!

...and I would add that "score bands" themselves are even more arbitrary than are the comparative meanings attached to LSAT scores. Who is to say that a more appropriate and predictive score band isn't a variant of 10 or even 15 points instead of just 5? The LSAT has serious problems.

In response to OP, for most people nothing good comes easily. It's a matter of attitude. If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

Nevertheless, the average student at a higher ranked school is NOT necessarily more intelligent than the average student at a lower ranked school. At the very least, the 20 brightest students at any two schools, regardless of rank, would possess about equal intelligence - if intelligence can even be measured.

That's a hard argument to beat if all anyone counters with is GPA/LSAT. And if the top students at the schools are about equal, their impacts on their schools and their peers would probably be about equal, as well. There's a reason HYS CCN MVPBN graduate douches get creamed in court every day by graduates from supposedly inferior schools.

Grades and LSAT's have very little to do with one's potential for law school success, and virtually nothing to do with success as a practicing lawyer. The contrary view has been disproven a million times.

[minnbills]

If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

This is happening, if not already happened.

[PDaddy]

If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

This is happening, if not already happened.

You're correct about the loss of prestige, but it is still a more difficult profession to enter than are most others.

[Greenandgold]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

Except 169 is Vanderbilt's 75th percentile, not its median.

ETA: sorry, 170 is its 75th percentile, but aren't score bands only within 3 points of each other? So there is a statistical difference between a 169 and a 173?

Also, this entirely ignores the massive difference in gpa's between the average student at Vanderbilt and at Harvard. I'd say the classes are pretty obviously different in terms of quality. It might not be a gigantic difference, but that doesn't make it not obvious.

[Nova]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

Except 169 is Vanderbilt's 75th percentile, not its median.

ETA: sorry, 170 is its 75th percentile, but aren't score bands only within 3 points of each other? So there is a statistical difference between a 169 and a 173?

They are both within the 170, 171, and 172 score bands.

[manofjustice]

A person with the grades/LSAT that got into HYS wouldn't have necessarily found it easier to be in the top 1/2 of the class if he had decided to attend a T2. That is of course one of the biggest draws to the very top schools--even if you're in the bottom 1/2 you're probably still doing ok. Schools in lower ranked bands can also be much harsher on grades and have much lower curves, which means more students with relatively lower GPAs. But a law school GPA is really only an indication of how you did at one particular school with a particular grouping of people. Although, people who fail to grasp the law school exam format in a way that prevents them from being at least 'in the middle of the pack' at any particular law school probably would not do well at any law school, since the format of law-exam taking is somewhat consistent. Conversely, someone with a high GPA at a high ranking school would not have necessarily received the same high GPA at a lower ranking school. The law school admissions metrics just don't correlate that well to actual law school success.

There is some data and analysis to suggest otherwise.

While it is mostly anecdotal, the T14 kids I know would almost certainly be top half of my T2's class. A significant of my class should never have been let in to any law school.

Yea, some professors did a whole study based on some pretty solid data sets that basically said this anecdotal sense is the way it really is. T14 kids are all very smart. And yes, being smart (and knowing how to study, as evidenced by GPA) matters a lot

[manofjustice]

Also, score bands apply to an individual's single score. If an entire class on average scores 4 points higher than an entire other class, the difference is not to be overlooked because it is within the score band of a single individual score. A 4 point difference is actually more than half a standard deviation for the LSAT. That is significant.

[manofjustice]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

+1!

...and I would add that "score bands" themselves are even more arbitrary than are the comparative meanings attached to LSAT scores. Who is to say that a more appropriate and predictive score band isn't a variant of 10 or even 15 points instead of just 5? The LSAT has serious problems.

In response to OP, for most people nothing good comes easily. It's a matter of attitude. If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

Nevertheless, the average student at a higher ranked school is NOT necessarily more intelligent than the average student at a lower ranked school. At the very least, the 20 brightest students at any two schools, regardless of rank, would possess about equal intelligence - if intelligence can even be measured.

That's a hard argument to beat if all anyone counters with is GPA/LSAT. And if the top students at the schools are about equal, their impacts on their schools and their peers would probably be about equal, as well. There's a reason HYS CCN MVPBN graduate douches get creamed in court every day by graduates from supposedly inferior schools.

Grades and LSAT's have very little to do with one's potential for law school success, and virtually nothing to do with success as a practicing lawyer. The contrary view has been disproven a million times.

This whole post is just wrong. No offense, but people who do poorly dismiss the LSAT. It is funny that people who dismiss the LSAT as useful for predicting success in the first year of law school don't then explain to us what the LSAT is useful for? What does it measure?

edit: not saying you did poorly, but your (non)arguments smack of that "well who needs it anyways" kind of thing.

[Greenandgold]

Also, score bands apply to an individual's single score. If an entire class on average scores 4 points higher than an entire other class, the difference is not to be overlooked because it is within the score band of a single individual score. A 4 point difference is actually more than half a standard deviation for the LSAT. That is significant.

+1

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

[Greenandgold]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

+1!

...and I would add that "score bands" themselves are even more arbitrary than are the comparative meanings attached to LSAT scores. Who is to say that a more appropriate and predictive score band isn't a variant of 10 or even 15 points instead of just 5? The LSAT has serious problems.

In response to OP, for most people nothing good comes easily. It's a matter of attitude. If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

Nevertheless, the average student at a higher ranked school is NOT necessarily more intelligent than the average student at a lower ranked school. At the very least, the 20 brightest students at any two schools, regardless of rank, would possess about equal intelligence - if intelligence can even be measured.

That's a hard argument to beat if all anyone counters with is GPA/LSAT. And if the top students at the schools are about equal, their impacts on their schools and their peers would probably be about equal, as well. There's a reason HYS CCN MVPBN graduate douches get creamed in court every day by graduates from supposedly inferior schools.

Grades and LSAT's have very little to do with one's potential for law school success, and virtually nothing to do with success as a practicing lawyer. The contrary view has been disproven a million times.

To add on to manofjustice's point, the contrary view has actually been proven through statistical analysis performed by the LSAC... Maybe if you could list just a couple examples of these "million" times that it's been disproven we might then be able to have a discussion. Right now you're just throwing out nonsense.

[spleenworship]

Nevertheless, the average student at a higher ranked school is NOT necessarily more intelligent than the average student at a lower ranked school. At the very least, the 20 brightest students at any two schools, regardless of rank, would possess about equal intelligence - if intelligence can even be measured.

That's a hard argument to beat if all anyone counters with is GPA/LSAT. And if the top students at the schools are about equal, their impacts on their schools and their peers would probably be about equal, as well. There's a reason HYS CCN MVPBN graduate douches get creamed in court every day by graduates from supposedly inferior schools.

Grades and LSAT's have very little to do with one's potential for law school success, and virtually nothing to do with success as a practicing lawyer. The contrary view has been disproven a million times.

+1 to all the bolded. Especially the part about the top 20 or so students. I honestly believe that the top 10-25% of any school would undoubtedly end up top 10-25% at any other given school. There is just something about them. To be honest though, I'm not sure it is intelligence. Just that they are good at playing the law school game. We have a transfer from Cooley at my school. Did well there, doing well here.

However, I don't think grades in law school, much less undergrad, have much influence on how good a lawyer you are. I meet amazing attorneys all the time, rich and feared, who were C students.

[spleenworship]

To add on to manofjustice's point, the contrary view has actually been proven through statistical analysis performed by the LSAC... Maybe if you could list just a couple examples of these "million" times that it's been disproven we might then be able to have a discussion. Right now you're just throwing out nonsense.

LSAT might have some correlation with first year success... but it ain't amazing. Half of the top 10% at my school scored lower than I did on the LSAT, and I'm only barely top 25%. LSAT has some predictive value for law school success, sure, but I wouldn't rely on that to make decisions about how I was going to do in law school. I sure as hell wouldn't rely on it to predict how well I would do in practice as an actual attorney.

This whole post is just wrong. No offense, but people who do poorly dismiss the LSAT. It is funny that people who dismiss the LSAT as useful for predicting success in the first year of law school don't then explain to us what the LSAT is useful for? What does it measure?

edit: not saying you did poorly, but your (non)arguments smack of that "well who needs it anyways" kind of thing.

at the boled. To answer your question: It measures how well you do on the LSAT.

It does not measure intelligence. It does not measure success in law school, just correlates... a little. It does not measure success as a lawyer. It is a nearly worthless, stupid test that arbitrarily separates people into categories that law schools can pick from.

Don't think because you did well that you are in any way special.

And people who say "no offense, but..." generally mean offense. Don't be a douche. You can make your point without insinuating that you have a high score and they have a low and therefore your opinion is better than theirs.

Oh, and before you go full retard on me: I scored in the upper 160s, on my first try. I probably could've retaken to get into the 170s, but my score was good enough for a scholly at my T2.

[dannyocean29]

how disappointing

[PDaddy]

I find it amusing that a bunch of you are arguing that law students at T6 schools are not ON AVERAGE more intelligent/competitive than students at lower ranked schools. Do you really think there is no correlation between UGPA + LSAT scores and ability to perform on law school exams?

It is patently obvious that it would be harder to make top 10% at Harvard than top 10% at, say, Vanderbilt (to give a random example).

Why would you give this as your example? It isn't "patently obvious" that making top 10% at Harvard is any harder than top 10% at Vanderbilt. I think you're overstating the difference between the quality of students that these schools attract. If the median student at Vandy has a 169 and the median student at Harvard has a 173, then they belong to the same score band.

+1!

...and I would add that "score bands" themselves are even more arbitrary than are the comparative meanings attached to LSAT scores. Who is to say that a more appropriate and predictive score band isn't a variant of 10 or even 15 points instead of just 5? The LSAT has serious problems.

In response to OP, for most people nothing good comes easily. It's a matter of attitude. If becoming a practicing lawyer was easy, everyone would be doing it - and the profession would lose its prestige altogether.

Nevertheless, the average student at a higher ranked school is NOT necessarily more intelligent than the average student at a lower ranked school. At the very least, the 20 brightest students at any two schools, regardless of rank, would possess about equal intelligence - if intelligence can even be measured.

That's a hard argument to beat if all anyone counters with is GPA/LSAT. And if the top students at the schools are about equal, their impacts on their schools and their peers would probably be about equal, as well. There's a reason HYS CCN MVPBN graduate douches get creamed in court every day by graduates from supposedly inferior schools.

Grades and LSAT's have very little to do with one's potential for law school success, and virtually nothing to do with success as a practicing lawyer. The contrary view has been disproven a million times.

This whole post is just wrong. No offense, but people who do poorly dismiss the LSAT. It is funny that people who dismiss the LSAT as useful for predicting success in the first year of law school don't then explain to us what the LSAT is useful for? What does it measure?

edit: not saying you did poorly, but your (non)arguments smack of that "well who needs it anyways" kind of thing.

I have never done poorly on the LSAT or any other test, and it's a relatively easy test...for me. I just know a lot of very bright attorneys who scored average, attended lower ranked schools and are now very successful lawyers. People who have read my LSAT posts on TLS, assisting students with problems, can tell that I am proficient at the test.

As far as attitudes concerning the test being tied to performance, the exact same thing can be said for those who score 175+ on the LSAT. They tie their entire self-esteem to [doing well on] a test that really means little, because they often have little or nothing else upon which to hang their hats. It's really sad.

The LSAT is a good test that measures some of the skills usefull for becoming a good law student, but it's an incomplete one. It has serious problems because it fails to measure many skills involved in succeeding at both levels (i.e. law school and practice). That's my position.

Anyone who disagrees with this should step into a courtroom and watch lawyers from so-called weaker law schools kick Harvard ass. For the record...I love Harvard and all of the top schools (deferred at a top school myself), but I am a realist. Take nothing for granted my friend. The LSAT is believed to be flawed by many people who do well on it.

[PDaddy]

To add on to manofjustice's point, the contrary view has actually been proven through statistical analysis performed by the LSAC... Maybe if you could list just a couple examples of these "million" times that it's been disproven we might then be able to have a discussion. Right now you're just throwing out nonsense.

The LSAC won't even publish the actual data it relies on. Don't you find that to be a bit strange? And when I say "data" I don't mean the "results of the data", I mean the actual data. They keep it secret, just like insurance companies keep secret the data they supposedly possess correlating credit scores to poor driving, justifying inflated rates for less creditworthy drivers. What a load of garbage....

Anyone with a vested interest can make up phony graphs and publish information favorable to its profit motive, especially when they do their own "research", instead of allowing an independent body to do it. Something tells me that the lSAC plays fast-and-loose with the truth and suppresses information that would disprove the validity of the test. And they have every reason to do it. Do you really think that the LSAC would admit that the test is faulty? Well...strike that. They publish this info, but then warn schools not to place too much emphasis on it when making admissions decisions.

That's their "out" if/when they get caught.

[kwais]

Anyone who disagrees with this should step into a courtroom and watch lawyers from so-called weaker law schools kick Harvard ass. For the record...I love Harvard and all of the top schools (deferred at a top school myself), but I am a realist. Take nothing for granted my friend. The LSAT is believed to be flawed by many people who do well on it.

Are you saying that in more than half of the cases between Harvard-types and non-Harvard-types, the latter wins? Or just saying that if want to see the Harvard-type get beaten, then this phenomena exists? With the amount of litigation in this country, you could likely see any one from any school beat someone from any other school? But so what?

[PDaddy]

Anyone who disagrees with this should step into a courtroom and watch lawyers from so-called weaker law schools kick Harvard ass. For the record...I love Harvard and all of the top schools (deferred at a top school myself), but I am a realist. Take nothing for granted my friend. The LSAT is believed to be flawed by many people who do well on it.

Are you saying that in more than half of the cases between Harvard-types and non-Harvard-types, the latter wins? Or just saying that if want to see the Harvard-type get beaten, then this phenomena exists? With the amount of litigation in this country, you could likely see any one from any school beat someone from any other school? But so what?

That's exactly what. It means earning high test scores and attending an elite law school don't mean you will be a star in the profession. That's pretty much it. Our TLS peers seem to disbelieve this.

Read my post above. I believe the top-20% or so at law schools across the board would probably be equal in terms of potential for lawyer succcess. I also believe that there are more students with higher potential for the profession at top schools. This does not mean that each student at elite school X is necessarily "more intelligent" than a so-called average student at good school Y, but I do believe that, in the aggregate, you would find better students at the better schools.

...and you are 100% correct in saying that anyone can whip anyone else's ass in the real world.

[kwais]

Anyone who disagrees with this should step into a courtroom and watch lawyers from so-called weaker law schools kick Harvard ass. For the record...I love Harvard and all of the top schools (deferred at a top school myself), but I am a realist. Take nothing for granted my friend. The LSAT is believed to be flawed by many people who do well on it.

Are you saying that in more than half of the cases between Harvard-types and non-Harvard-types, the latter wins? Or just saying that if want to see the Harvard-type get beaten, then this phenomena exists? With the amount of litigation in this country, you could likely see any one from any school beat someone from any other school? But so what?

That's exactly what. It means earning high test scores and attending an elite law school don't mean you will be a star in the profession. That's pretty much it. Our TLS peers seem to disbelieve this.

Read my post above. I believe the top-20% or so at law schools across the board would probably be equal in terms of potential for lawyer succcess. I also believe that there are more students with higher potential for the profession at top schools. This does not mean that each student at elite school X is necessarily "more intelligent" than a so-called average student at good school Y, but I do believe that, in the aggregate, you would find better students at the better schools.

...and you are 100% correct in saying that anyone can whip anyone else's ass in the real world.

I guess. But I think buried in your posts here is the idea that the AVERAGE Harvard student will win in the courtroom over the AVERAGE TT student. So how is that really different than saying that Harvard has more intellectual talent than a lower-ranked school?

[spleenworship]

I guess. But I think buried in your posts here is the idea that the AVERAGE Harvard student will win in the courtroom over the AVERAGE TT student. So how is that really different than saying that Harvard has more intellectual talent than a lower-ranked school?

I disagree with this. Courtroom skill and academic ability might be correlated, but not that much. In fact, given the average TTs emphasis on more practical skills, TT attorneys might be better in actual practice, at least at first. One of my Harvard graduate Profs admits his first several times in a courtroom he was soundly beaten by C students from the local TT. He got better, but I think that experience, people skills, hard work on prep, and quick wits - things that can be possessed by anyone, TT or T14, go a lot farther in the courtroom than academic ability.

[kwais]

I guess. But I think buried in your posts here is the idea that the AVERAGE Harvard student will win in the courtroom over the AVERAGE TT student. So how is that really different than saying that Harvard has more intellectual talent than a lower-ranked school?

I disagree with this. Courtroom skill and academic ability might be correlated, but not that much. In fact, given the average TTs emphasis on more practical skills, TT attorneys might be better in actual practice, at least at first. One of my Harvard graduate Profs admits his first several times in a courtroom he was soundly beaten by C students from the local TT. He got better, but I think that experience, people skills, hard work on prep, and quick wits - things that can be possessed by anyone, TT or T14, go a lot farther in the courtroom than academic ability.

man, are you people dense? I agree with everything you said, but it still doesn't refute my point. Those things you cited are much more important than the school you go to, but if you plucked a random student from each, who is likely to have more courtroom potential? I'm not saying "if better school --> smarter" but, you guys are basically matching anecdotes of the better TT grads who made it, ignoring the thousands who sucked a the law and then saying, TT will probably beat Harvard in the court because of the sick Trial Practice course at Stetson. GTFO