Law School

[KSigkid]

See, that is honestly beyond me. Why go through the effort, time and cost if you're wishy washy about it?

I think I went a bit to the extreme in my decision-making process. I talked to a number of friends, colleagues, and work contacts who are in law school, recently graduated, or are well into their law careers. I also talked to a few of my professors from college (a couple who had gone to law school) to get their read on my potential for law school and beyond.

I just don't know why anyone would go into this (or any school decision) halfway...

[Stef the Pef]

Originally Posted by Rudey

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?...198&forum_id=2

They have better threads on this forum whether it's on law school, bschool, or college. Lots of funny kids.

-Rudey

Priceless stuff! Bwahahahaha!

Date: September 16th, 2004 1:06 PM
Author: ¶etro

Would it also help if I got super-buff? I could be the buff gunner.

[BobbyTheDon]

dude. everyone needs to bow down to Wine & Silver Blue because she is the ish.

Seriously

[BobbyTheDon]

Originally Posted by kddani

I've seen this on a few law related message boards and thought it would be pertinent to post on here. I agree with most of it:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


As a 2005 grad and a practicing lawyer, I though I'd post this. Perhaps I'll save a few from a bad choice.

Many folks are firm believers that their LSAT and GPA don't represent the 'real' them. They use my favorite line: they're "smarter than the numbers say they are". They may have graduated college with a B- average in psychology, they may have gotten a 150 on the LSAT after 500 hours of studying, but to them it doesn't matter: They are smart. They want to go to law school.

Are you one of those people?

Time for a wake up call.

If YOU are one of those folks, know this: You may think you're smart (everyone does)...

But you're probably wrong (most people are).

If you didn't/couldn't do well in college, which is EASY compared to law school, or on the LSAT, which is a completely predictable and reasonably short test, you probably won't do well in law school. Here's why:

1) You probably read slowly.

If you could never manage to finish the LSAT, which rewards speedy readers, guess what? You'll probably have trouble keeping up with all the reading as a 1L. We would often read well over 500 pages PER CLASS, per semester. And that's not like reading Tom Clancy. No, you need to pick up on small points which are often hidden in the text. You need to learn new words and terms, and keep track of what they mean accurately ("preponderance" doesn't mean "tons and tons"). You need to remember it all.

Unlike college (which is commonly run like high school these days), you are NOT TAUGHT THE LAW. (I can hear the "huh?" now). You learn the law on your own. The classes are just to refine that knowledge.

This is a very, very, important distinction. You've probably experienced someone lecturing you on a topic--say, the quadratic theorem--until you learn it. In law school, they'd hand you the algebra book and say "go learn the quadratic theorem, we'll have 30 minutes tomorrow to discuss it, maybe".

If you can't learn from books, you're in trouble.

2) You probably write like @#$%&.

OK, this applies to many lawyers as well. But Legal Methods is a great 1L-killer. And many professors will murder you on exams--as they well should--if you can't write, to say nothing of seminars which require papers. Can you write a coherent sentence? Can you write a coherent paragraph? (hint: Have you ever gotten an "A" on a lengthy paper in college? How about more than a few "B"s? Did you major in a writing-intensive field where you were graded on your writing skills? If you can't say "yes" to one or more of these, the answer is probably no.)

Also, be aware that the BAR exam is all written. And that employers strongly prefer people who can write, for hopefully obvious reasons.

(final hint: If you need someone to write your essay for you, or do substantial editing to grammar, spelling, word choice, etc: you're doomed.)

3) You have bad study skills.

Do you take good notes? REALLY good notes? Are you decent at listening to a conversation and understanding what's important? DO you write your papers on time? Do you study well inadvance of exams? DO you use any opportunities you can get for feedback from your teachers?

Law school is not fact based. It is fact-based AND reason-based. If you uderstand the "what" but not the "why", you will not do well. And while it's possible to memorize the parts of a cell in 2 hours--even though it's complicated--or to learn the Krebs cycle by rote, it's not the same in law school. You can memorize the definition of proximate cause until you're blue in the face and you'll still fail the essay if you don't understand it.

Thus, while cramming is an important skill, it's less important than studying.

4) You procrastinate.
Yes, lots of people do it. I am a procrastinator myself, which is why I'm typing this instead of billing hours. And there is nothing wrong with it per se, SO LONG AS you have the brains and work ethic to get it done in the end.

If you get behind and you're smart and a fast read, you can catch up. If you're a slow reader who doesn't understand the basics yet, when do you think you'll catch up? Over break?

5) You falsely overestimate your grasp of the material
It's easy to think "I know this" until someone asks you a question on it which you didn't think of, or until you don't have your notes. Perhaps this should be in the 'study skills' section. But EVERY SEMESTER (especially the first) people will think they know the material, and they're wrong.

How dumb can you get? Go get an exam and try it WITHOUT your notes. Did you get it all right? Law school is full of sample questions, old tests, practice exams... and students who ignore them. Again: It might fly in college, but not here.

Not incidentally, this also applies to those who think law school is not especially hard in general.

Quick multi-part quiz:
a) How well did you do on the LSAT?
b) Di you expect the score you got?
c) If not, why not?
d) if so, and it was a bad score, why did you take the LSAT in the first place?

6) You party too hard.
Yes, I know you used to go out drinking all the time in college. But I'll give you a bit o' free advice: Don't do it until SECOND SEMESTER. Which is to say: If you got As, you can afford to have beers on Tuesdays.

7) You think your previous problems were unique.
Yes, I know, you were a hard partier in college. Now you've changed. And you had a weird roommate. You hated your major. Your advisor sucked. You got a D in some bullshit freshman course which pulled down your GPA. This may all be true.

However, OTHER PEOPLE HAD THE SAME PROBLEMS. And got better grades.

This does not apply to a very small subset of people; those whose mother died 1 day before finals, etc etc etc.

But for most people:

You improved your study skills since college...
but so did everyone else.

This is a problem because:

8) The school grades on a curve, but other people are smarter than you, work harder than you, or both.

Most t4 schools curve fairly low; nonetheless you need a C average to get a J.D. Why is this a problem?

Well, think of it this way:
-Remember all those folks who ALSO went to college, had their own set of excuses, and who still did better than you? They're in your class.
-Remember all those folks who ALSO took the LSAT, had their own set of excuses, and who still did better than you? They're in your class.

You don't need to do better than you have done. You don't need to meet some wonderful personal goal of acheivement. You need to do better than OTHER PEOPLE. Many of who, it is probably safe to say based on GPA and LSAT, have better learning skills than you do.

You can't change how smart you are. You can only change how hard you work, and you need to work MUCH HARDER than they do. And--you may not know this, because if you have a low GPA and LSAT you apparently haven't done it before--working hard all the time is very, very, difficult. It's hard to keep going for three years.

Nonetheless, you must work until you do well. Top students will generally put in 40-60 hours per week, every week, plus more on exams. You will see them in the library between classes. You will recognize them because they will sometimes decline invitations to play Ultimate in favor of studying.

I know that doesn't sound bad, but there's a catch: Those were the top students. They are generally the ones with advantages in terms of study skills and reading speed. When they sit down to study for an hour, they DO IT. They don't surf the web, chat, masturbate, or play on Westlaw.

If you're a slow reader you may need to devote 80 hours per week to law school just to keep up with the reading. If you're a poor writer you may need to rewrite your Legal Methods brief seven times. This is enough to break most people. But if you're going to invest $30000 you better be sure you can hack it.
(hint: Have you ever spent 60 hours a week working, studying, or a combination? If you could hold that down for a few months, you'll be fine. If not, you should worry).

9) You're making a bad financial choice.
Law is a financially rewarding profession for these categories of folks:

a) People with successful careers already, who merely supplement or build on their career through a law degree.

If you've got a PhD, own or manage a copmany, etc: this may be you. If you work at a Gap: this is not you.

b) people who go to top law schools.
You know who you are.

c) People who have family or political connections.
You know who you are.

d) People who do VERY well at lower ranked law schools AND who get lucky. Very well means top 10% at a t4, possibly top 5%. Even so you won't get into BIGLAW easily.

Remember that if you choose wrong, you've wasted ayear of income and experience, lost $30k in tuition, quit any job you had, tken worthless courses, and destroyed your morale.

CONCLUSION!!

Choose carefully. Law is right for many people. Just be sure it's right for YOU. There are far easier ways to get respect, education, and money.

I don't want to be a complete downer. Few feelings are more pleasant than tackling a difficult task and succeeding. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with gambling and losing so long as the odds are good. Life happens, and even brilliant students will do well. Law school is not life; it's not a measure of personal success.

OTOH, few things are more unpleasant than making a bad gamble just because you were too tired, or bored, or pressured, or confused, to think it through first. If you don't know yourself well; if you find you can't predict results which stem from your own actions: You're making a bad gamble. Take a year off and think.

Studies show that on average, people are selectively perceptive. We "earn" an A grade. We "get given" a D. We attribute our success to skill, even when it's rare. We attribute our failure to luck or others, even when it's common.

Does that sound familiar?

The studies also show that an average person is only semi-literate, has a 100-IQ, and is someone who would not do well in law school.

This has been a friendly message from your local attorney....


DON'T BE AVERAGE.

Edited:
Some of my very good friends in law school--people who were among my favorite folks as a first semester 1L--flunked out. That sucks. I would not want that to happen to anyone I like, nor to anyone in general.

Most of the people you will talk to (parents especially) and most of the books and websites and classes and videos you will see or use are dedicated to telling you that "anyone can succeed in law school". They generally have a vested interest in having you believe them, for obvious reasons.

I suppose it's theoretically true; "anyone can succeed in law school". In practice, however, its often false. Still, it seems that many more people would believe that statement about law school than would believe it about medical school, or most graduate PhD programs. Yet while law school isn't as hard as many PhD programs, it's a lot closer to them in difficulty than it is to a MSW, or college, to name a few comparisons.

I have no particular vested interest in whether anyone here goes to law school, or fails the bar, or makes a million dollars as the next Judge Judy. Unlike your parents, counselor, and professors, I really don't care.

But I think law schools in general and especially those at the low tiers do a disservice to applicants by falsely inflating their chances of graduating, passing the bar, and finding a job. This post is my own way of countering the misinformation.

Bippity boppity bippity boppity boo.


post stocker marshall faulker!

[Stef the Pef]

kddani is my hero after that post. I like the "You write like @$%!" one--it's so true of so many of the pre-laws I know right now!

[shinerbock]

I think name may matter a little less than people think, depending on what you wanna do. Of course a Yale or a UVA is gonna look great and help ensure employment, but I think it depends on what you want to do. I lucked up and was accepted at the top tier schools I applied to, but they're not the nationwide resume boosters. Thus, from talking to a good many friends who are in law school and those who have moved on, I think class position should probably be your focus. Obviously your plans post grad have a big role as well. One thing I found, being from Atlanta, is that you're probably just as likely to get that lucrative summer program with one of the local big 4(King and Spalding, Kilpatrick Stockton, Alston Bird, Troutman Sanders) by attending Georgia State(a decent school) as you are attending the much higher ranked UGA(34th nationally). I asked a couple of people about this who are attorneys in ATL firms, and they told me that students familiar with and living in the city are the surest long term bets. Thus, if you've been living downtown for the last 3 years, you're probably pretty comfortable with the urban setting, and theres a greater chance you'll be a good longterm choice for the firm. Even if it were more unequal, lets say a Ga State student v. an Emory grad, class position and involvement (law review, moot court, mock trial), may very well determine your fate. Thus, going to the lesser school (GSU) and performing excellently would probably be more advantageous than being a middle of the road student at Emory. This probably extends to most schools, save the very elite, and the lower tier. So I was advised like this: if what you want is a mega firm where you'll make 6 figures starting out, go to the best school, or the close(geographic)-good alternative (If you can't get into UVA or Georgetown, go to American or George Mason). If you're interested in your resume, or wanna pursue a career in politics or obtain a clerkship, you should go to the absolute best school you can that is reasonable for your situation(This is me, I chose UGA over the higher ranked UNC and Emory, but over lower ranked schools like Alabama and Wake Forest). For my situation, I was told that Emory grads have a very small or nonexistant leg up on UGA grads, so the extra 20k a year wasn't worth it to me. Similarly, there was no need to attend an out of state school for just a couple of positions. If interested in the political/judicial type fields, I was told that your connections may be even more important than they are when trying to land that big firm gig, so a strong and loyal alumni base is also helpful. Now, I may find this not to be true upon graduation, but I've heard this advice from just about everyone I know in the field...go to the best law school you can afford, that you feel comfortable at, and that fits your future career needs...but regardless of where you end up, you can often make up for several US News spots by absolutely busting your ass.

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

One thing I found, being from Atlanta, is that you're probably just as likely to get that lucrative summer program with one of the local big 4(King and Spalding, Kilpatrick Stockton, Alston Bird, Troutman Sanders) by attending Georgia State(a decent school) as you are attending the much higher ranked UGA(34th nationally).

Yes. These firms take more students from local schools than any other school in the country. They recruit much more heavily at UGA, GA State, Mercer and Emory than they do Harvard, UVA, etc. In some cases, they recruit more heavily at Emory and GA State than the other Georgia schools since they're in Atlanta.

[shinerbock]

Well from what I've seen and heard, most big firms like the ones I mentioned will recruit the local law schools, and then also go to the very elite schools as well. For example, a major Dallas-based firm would probably go to Texas, SMU, Oklahoma and LSU in addition to visiting Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UVA, Georgetown, etc...Or so it appears to me.

[ZTAngel]

They'll also recruit from Southeastern schools such as UF, Tennessee, Alabama, UNC, etc. but anything outside of the Southeast or the very elite schools is usually not on the Atlanta top ten law firm's recruitment list.

[_Opi_]

Most t4 schools curve fairly low; nonetheless you need a C average to get a J.D. Why is this a problem?

KDDani, while this is true for some, it's not true for others. My LS is considered a T4 by the USNews, and has a bad reputation for variety of reasons (some of which I agree with). However, academic-wise, it is tougher than many of the surrounding t14 or t2/3/4 schools to maintain a high GPA. It is specifically designed that way. I know our C's are equivelant to UMIchigan's Bs .

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well from what I've seen and heard, most big firms like the ones I mentioned will recruit the local law schools, and then also go to the very elite schools as well. For example, a major Dallas-based firm would probably go to Texas, SMU, Oklahoma and LSU in addition to visiting Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UVA, Georgetown, etc...Or so it appears to me.

There is a similar pattern here in Boston. Suffolk Law isn't the highest rated school in the world, but many of the prominent Boston firms recruit from there. Of course, they still get many attorneys from Harvard, BU and BC, but Suffolk grads do well for themselves.

[BobbyTheDon]

Originally Posted by _Opi_

Most t4 schools curve fairly low; nonetheless you need a C average to get a J.D. Why is this a problem?

KDDani, while this is true for some, it's not true for others. My LS is considered a T4 by the USNews, and has a bad reputation for variety of reasons (some of which I agree with). However, academic-wise, it is tougher than many of the surrounding t14 or t2/3/4 schools to maintain a high GPA. It is specifically designed that way. I know our C's are equivelant to UMIchigan's Bs .

:::cough cough BULLSHIT cough cough:::

A Cooley C is not equivalent to a Michgan B.

I'm sorry

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

FYI for everybody, Amazon.com has a deal going where if you spend $150 on textbooks, you get $15 off. I ordered all of the books that I could on there this semester and saved $75 over my bookstore.

Thanks for the heads up. I was told I'd hear from professors, but I'm just going to take a ride over to school this weekend and figure out what I need.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by AXiD670

I'm all that I missed this post while I was on vacation. My books arrived today, and I am amazed that $450 worth of books fits into such a tiny box. Of course, I didn't have to buy books in undergrad (we rented them), so I really have no point of reference. I bought eight books for three classes.

I think I paid around that for my first semester of books. I hate that the stupid federal rules of ___ are always so expensive.

[adpiucf]

Applications are up on LSAC!

Scholarship essays? Yikes! I thought I was done writing!