How committed are you? Forum

[rundoxierun]

Haha knew this was a flame the moment I saw the words "hyped" and "guarantee". I would love for someone to show me all these schools that apparently explicitly "guarantee" their students 6 figure salaries.

[criticalthinkx]

Re-take.

OK, so this sounds like the logical thing to do, even when everyone is saying to take the test only once. The original question for this thread was to inquire why people would just give up when obtaining an acceptable score.
If someone with a 167-170 re-takes the test a few times without raising their score more than a couple points, a law school might see that person in an unfavorable way. If a student (esp. in any grad program) doesn't know when to let something rest, it can drive the student crazy. After all, there's a specific reason why all grad school entrance exams can be taken only so many times in a given period.
Let's say I am on the admission board. I might question why a person kept wasting money and time taking a test over when their original score was sufficient to get in to begin with. What is this person going to do when they receive a less than stellar grade in the program, which is highly probable?
If there's any way to predict a student's performance in grad/law school it's related to the way they handle the entrance exam (and not just their score and study abilities). How does that person handle the score they earn? Do they waste time and money to gain a couple points, or do they adjust their plans to suite their limitations?
You can't re-take all your tests in law school, and certainly don't get more than one chance to litigate a case (usually). As a client I would prefer an attorney that does what they can with what they have compared to one that gets caught up in less-important matters beyond their control (wasting money).

[Shooter]

Re-take.

OK, so this sounds like the logical thing to do, even when everyone is saying to take the test only once. The original question for this thread was to inquire why people would just give up when obtaining an acceptable score.
If someone with a 167-170 re-takes the test a few times without raising their score more than a couple points, a law school might see that person in an unfavorable way. If a student (esp. in any grad program) doesn't know when to let something rest, it can drive the student crazy. After all, there's a specific reason why all grad school entrance exams can be taken only so many times in a given period.
Let's say I am on the admission board. I might question why a person kept wasting money and time taking a test over when their original score was sufficient to get in to begin with. What is this person going to do when they receive a less than stellar grade in the program, which is highly probable?
If there's any way to predict a student's performance in grad/law school it's related to the way they handle the entrance exam (and not just their score and study abilities). How does that person handle the score they earn? Do they waste time and money to gain a couple points, or do they adjust their plans to suite their limitations?
You can't re-take all your tests in law school, and certainly don't get more than one chance to litigate a case (usually). As a client I would prefer an attorney that does what they can with what they have compared to one that gets caught up in less-important matters beyond their control (wasting money).

This is credited for business school, but not for law school. Also, that whole thing about re-taking law school exams and re-litigating cases is ludicrous. You are comparing apples and oranges, or more like semi-trucks and oranges.

[criticalthinkx]

Haha knew this was a flame the moment I saw the words "hyped" and "guarantee". I would love for someone to show me all these schools that apparently explicitly "guarantee" their students 6 figure salaries.

I'm not sure anything qualifies as a flame in this thread (up to this point). These are serious considerations for some people.
I've seen a lot of people beating themselves up on many boards. It's sad. That's why I brought this topic up for discussion.
Maybe I am just old, but having gone through a little bit of life and knowing the fears I had in my early twenties about my future, it's silly to get so crazy over a test. There's a lot more to my ability to perform that will never be measured by a standardized test. I believe the same applies to everyone else. This is why I question the validity of the LSAT, and the effects it has on people who don't understand the nuances of getting into law school.
The LSAT is a glimpse into four hours of my life, and the test deserves to be regarded by law schools accordingly. Thankfully, schools like UC Berkeley are already onto this whole phenomenon, and are trying to adjust the admissions process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ896_I8me0

There are a lot of people in the world making money by promoting elitism and greed (and BIG egos). The impact is distancing education from certain socio-economic populations, and violates the spirit of the country (in my opinion, of course). Practicing law is not about becoming a rich, powerful lawyer for everyone. Giving up on the dream of becoming a lawyer because of a lower than expected LSAT score seems indicative of a person who's probably not that committed to the practice.

[criticalthinkx]

Re-take.

OK, so this sounds like the logical thing to do, even when everyone is saying to take the test only once. The original question for this thread was to inquire why people would just give up when obtaining an acceptable score.
If someone with a 167-170 re-takes the test a few times without raising their score more than a couple points, a law school might see that person in an unfavorable way. If a student (esp. in any grad program) doesn't know when to let something rest, it can drive the student crazy. After all, there's a specific reason why all grad school entrance exams can be taken only so many times in a given period.
Let's say I am on the admission board. I might question why a person kept wasting money and time taking a test over when their original score was sufficient to get in to begin with. What is this person going to do when they receive a less than stellar grade in the program, which is highly probable?
If there's any way to predict a student's performance in grad/law school it's related to the way they handle the entrance exam (and not just their score and study abilities). How does that person handle the score they earn? Do they waste time and money to gain a couple points, or do they adjust their plans to suite their limitations?
You can't re-take all your tests in law school, and certainly don't get more than one chance to litigate a case (usually). As a client I would prefer an attorney that does what they can with what they have compared to one that gets caught up in less-important matters beyond their control (wasting money).

This is credited for business school, but not for law school. Also, that whole thing about re-taking law school exams and re-litigating cases is ludicrous. You are comparing apples and oranges, or more like semi-trucks and oranges.

Okay, let's say it is ludicrous to compare one's handling of the LSAT and their handling of a legal case. Let's pretend that nothing I do as a human carries over into other area of my life. This just furthers the point that LSATs are an inaccurate representation of one's ability to perform as a lawyer.
We are talking about performance indicators, so if the LSAT is not relative to one's ability to get something right the first time, why don't they let people take the test as many times as they want?

[IAFG]

the legal field is feast or famine. there's biglaw and then there's shitlaw (insurance defense, doc review, personal injury, etc). PI, and public defenders, and law that "helps people" will go to HYS grads with good grades who aren't seduced by big firms with big bonuses. even for HYS grads with good grades, i know of people who really want PI and are stuck with their biglaw backup plan, because there just aren't enough jobs to go around.

yeah, there is such a thing as "small town lawyers" still, who do wills and stuff, but in the small town where i grew up, there are 5-7 "firms" (i assume all solo practices) serving 2500 people, so the competition is stiff there.

people get upset by prestige whoring on TLS, but honestly, its better here than out there in legal hiring. one poster had a partner at a firm tell him that his T14 was fine, for a regional school. lawyers are dicks.

[Tanicius]

PI, and public defenders, and law that "helps people" will go to HYS grads with good grades who aren't seduced by big firms with big bonuses.

There's a huge difference between county and state-level PD/prosecutor gigs and "prestigious" PI like the ACLU. You'll want HYS to land the ACLU, federal positions, and a handful of downtown district court positions like LA or Manhattan, but the vast majority of state-funded trial attorney offices don't care where you went to school. You are right that there are so few of these jobs to go around due to the forced budget cuts by the economy, but going to HYS will not help you one bit in getting these jobs - because they don't exist. The jobs that do exist go to the people who can best demonstrate trial skills and a motivation to work in the trenches, demonstrations that HYS grads often fail to make.