Fellow Class of 2013/pre-1L Transfers Forum

[ToTransferOrNot]

It was luck that one of my professors thought the grade scale was out of 190 (it's out of 186).

It was luck that a buddy of mine wrote a test almost identical to mine for torts, yet got 2 grade notches higher.

It was luck that 50% of my Ks final exam happened to be one big warranties fact pattern--a subject I understood without effort, for some reason.

It was luck that the vast majority of my exams have not had word limits--I get A+s when no word limits are involved, A-s and lower when they are.

But this is why I say "some combination of luck and [other things]". Luck is what makes the difference between the B+ and the A, or the A- and the A+; it probably doesn't make the difference between median and top 10%.

[rando]

but the thing about hard work is thats its something you can change and something you can make yourself become. Its a lot harder to suddenly get "smarter" or more logical (not that a high lsat necessarily means that anyway).

Which is why I think splitters do have an advantage, especially ones like me, who's gpa really just represents strange circumstances and not the best effort. If i worked at the level I work in law school I would have been a 4.0 student in Undergrad instead of the 2.9 or whatever I finished with.

This is a logical fallacy in itself. You are saying that you are an exception to the rule. Citing strange circumstances for why you didn't do well. You forget how many stories of poor LSAT performance there are. People that underachieve on test day under strange circumstances. I would argue GPA is a better indicator because it is over a long time period, making it less likely that strange circumstance play as significant a factor.
I also tend to disagree that hard work is something that people can change and make themselves become. Some people can. But if I were going to pick someone to do well at school it would be the person who did well in the past, not just the one that did the best on a standardized test.

No way dude, at least not at schools ranked probably less than t30. The intelligence that is tested on the LSAT is FAR more relevant than any major. The people who usually do the best as far as UG is concerned are science, math, or engineering grads. Many of these people SUCK at writing and hate reading with a fiery passion, yet they outperform many history/english type majors. It is a whole different way of thinking. That is actually one of the secrets, IMO, to my success. I convinced myself before starting that I was at a disadvantage by the way I was taught to think and express those thoughts. In fact, I received a crappy median grade on my first LRW assignment and just received the very highest grade in the class this time around. I began deconsructing my paper in a mathematical way and decided to dump everything that I thought I knew about writing. I am a writing robot now, and it WORKS.

UG and UG grades are LARGELY irrelevant IMO, but, I admit, it is just my opinion.

Ok. hmm. I'm not really sure what your premise is. I understand your conclusion and your lrw example. but the bolded I don't follow. What do you mean science people do the best in undergrad? Its not like history majors are taking rigorous science classes. They do well too. Not to mention, these science people are the ones who would approach LRW the way that you just described.

[ToTransferOrNot]

but the thing about hard work is thats its something you can change and something you can make yourself become. Its a lot harder to suddenly get "smarter" or more logical (not that a high lsat necessarily means that anyway).

Which is why I think splitters do have an advantage, especially ones like me, who's gpa really just represents strange circumstances and not the best effort. If i worked at the level I work in law school I would have been a 4.0 student in Undergrad instead of the 2.9 or whatever I finished with.

This is a logical fallacy in itself. You are saying that you are an exception to the rule. Citing strange circumstances for why you didn't do well. You forget how many stories of poor LSAT performance there are. People that underachieve on test day under strange circumstances. I would argue GPA is a better indicator because it is over a long time period, making it less likely that strange circumstance play as significant a factor.
I also tend to disagree that hard work is something that people can change and make themselves become. Some people can. But if I were going to pick someone to do well at school it would be the person who did well in the past, not just the one that did the best on a standardized test.

No way dude, at least not at schools ranked probably less than t30. The intelligence that is tested on the LSAT is FAR more relevant than any major. The people who usually do the best as far as UG is concerned are science, math, or engineering grads. Many of these people SUCK at writing and hate reading with a fiery passion, yet they outperform many history/english type majors. It is a whole different way of thinking. That is actually one of the secrets, IMO, to my success. I convinced myself before starting that I was at a disadvantage by the way I was taught to think and express those thoughts. In fact, I received a crappy median grade on my first LRW assignment and just received the very highest grade in the class this time around. I began deconsructing my paper in a mathematical way and decided to dump everything that I thought I knew about writing. I am a writing robot now, and it WORKS.

UG and UG grades are LARGELY irrelevant IMO, but, I admit, it is just my opinion.

Ok. hmm. I'm not really sure what your premise is. I understand your conclusion and your lrw example. but the bolded I don't follow. What do you mean science people do the best in undergrad? Its not like history majors are taking rigorous science classes. They do well too. Not to mention, these science people are the ones who would approach LRW the way that you just described.

He means the bolded majors do better in law school, I believe; or perhaps that they do better on the LSAT.

[JordynAsh]

Why can't you restudy the LSAT? There are two posters on this thread with a gpa below 3 who will be or are attending a t14.

You realize why this is risky right?

Good luck.

I realize it's risky. I also realize I don't want to delay law school another year more than I already have. As others have mentioned, you don't know the full specifics of my situation or motives. You say it doesn't matter what my specifics are in relation to your advice. I say, I know what I want to do. I'm going to do it.

Why must you be pessimistic? You know absolutely nothing about this person's situation, schools, etc...

Amichig had entirely the right idea.

No, Amichig had the idea you like the best because it provides the validation you were hoping to secure.

Going to any law school with the intention of transferring to another school is an incredible gamble. If you're dead-set on it, no one's stopping you, but don't expect much sympathy from TLS in a year if you're not in a position to transfer.

[rando]

[

You're probably doing it wrong.

Fail.

You say to the person who did minimal work 1L, transfered to a T6, and is at the top of the class there (at least for the time being), after doing minimal work.

Hate to break it to you man, but success in law school is based much more on a combination of luck, ability to sense what the professor is going to test, and focused study on various points--a kind of study that is not time consuming at all. Some high level work ethic doesn't mean a hell of a lot--I get out-worked by almost everyone.

Seriously. As smart as you make yourself out to be, you are acting like a dumbass. You have no idea who I am, what my grades are like, what my LSAT score or GPA was. You know what worked for you and I know what worked for me.
As an aside, hard work has never failed me in any facet of my life so HW and I have a special bond.

[rando]

[

No way dude, at least not at schools ranked probably less than t30. The intelligence that is tested on the LSAT is FAR more relevant than any major. The people who usually do the best as far as UG is concerned are science, math, or engineering grads. Many of these people SUCK at writing and hate reading with a fiery passion, yet they outperform many history/english type majors. It is a whole different way of thinking. That is actually one of the secrets, IMO, to my success. I convinced myself before starting that I was at a disadvantage by the way I was taught to think and express those thoughts. In fact, I received a crappy median grade on my first LRW assignment and just received the very highest grade in the class this time around. I began deconsructing my paper in a mathematical way and decided to dump everything that I thought I knew about writing. I am a writing robot now, and it WORKS.

UG and UG grades are LARGELY irrelevant IMO, but, I admit, it is just my opinion.

Ok. hmm. I'm not really sure what your premise is. I understand your conclusion and your lrw example. but the bolded I don't follow. What do you mean science people do the best in undergrad? Its not like history majors are taking rigorous science classes. They do well too. Not to mention, these science people are the ones who would approach LRW the way that you just described.[/quote]

He means the bolded majors do better in law school, I believe; or perhaps that they do better on the LSAT.[/quote]

Oh, it says "as far as UG is concerned" but your answer makes more sense for either

[A'nold]

This is a logical fallacy in itself. You are saying that you are an exception to the rule. Citing strange circumstances for why you didn't do well. You forget how many stories of poor LSAT performance there are. People that underachieve on test day under strange circumstances. I would argue GPA is a better indicator because it is over a long time period, making it less likely that strange circumstance play as significant a factor.
I also tend to disagree that hard work is something that people can change and make themselves become. Some people can. But if I were going to pick someone to do well at school it would be the person who did well in the past, not just the one that did the best on a standardized test.

No way dude, at least not at schools ranked probably less than t30. The intelligence that is tested on the LSAT is FAR more relevant than any major. The people who usually do the best as far as UG is concerned are science, math, or engineering grads. Many of these people SUCK at writing and hate reading with a fiery passion, yet they outperform many history/english type majors. It is a whole different way of thinking. That is actually one of the secrets, IMO, to my success. I convinced myself before starting that I was at a disadvantage by the way I was taught to think and express those thoughts. In fact, I received a crappy median grade on my first LRW assignment and just received the very highest grade in the class this time around. I began deconsructing my paper in a mathematical way and decided to dump everything that I thought I knew about writing. I am a writing robot now, and it WORKS.

UG and UG grades are LARGELY irrelevant IMO, but, I admit, it is just my opinion.

Ok. hmm. I'm not really sure what your premise is. I understand your conclusion and your lrw example. but the bolded I don't follow. What do you mean science people do the best in undergrad? Its not like history majors are taking rigorous science classes. They do well too. Not to mention, these science people are the ones who would approach LRW the way that you just described.

He means the bolded majors do better in law school, I believe; or perhaps that they do better on the LSAT.

Yep, both actually. It is just a way of thinking that most of us are not exposed to at length growing up. Yet another reason why there is a class discrepancy as well wrt score. I wuzn't razed to use thees big smart peple's wurds.

On luck: I see what you are saying but I actually think I was on the opposite side of the grading luck thing. In at least 2 classes that I know of I missed being one grade higher by like 1 point out of over 100 points and was probably the highest grade on the group clustered at a certain grade, to the point where another professor actually heard my raw score and said something like, "oh, so you got an A in there" b/c they had heard what the other prof's. grade scale was. Point is, I am still first in the section even with that "bad" luck.

Edit: oh yeah, and you don't give yourself enough credit as evidenced by your domination now at a t6.

[rando]

It was luck that one of my professors thought the grade scale was out of 190 (it's out of 186).

It was luck that a buddy of mine wrote a test almost identical to mine for torts, yet got 2 grade notches higher.

It was luck that 50% of my Ks final exam happened to be one big warranties fact pattern--a subject I understood without effort, for some reason.

It was luck that the vast majority of my exams have not had word limits--I get A+s when no word limits are involved, A-s and lower when they are.

But this is why I say "some combination of luck and [other things]". Luck is what makes the difference between the B+ and the A, or the A- and the A+; it probably doesn't make the difference between median and top 10%.

Those are all terrific points. Law exam grading/testing is a crapshoot. But it seems like you are saying that a random distribution is what creates the curve. This is a fine argument. If grades are totally random, people will come out the same way they do on a normal distribution curve. But the best way to hedge against a lot of this luck is to be better prepared than everyone else. Most people work hard in LS (as you mentioned, most people worked harder than you.) but some people clearly work much harder. In my experience, those people are the ones who tend to do the best, on LR, have jobs right now etc.

I do believe that you didn't work hard and did well. I don't know how well this will serve you in the long run, but that is not really what we are talking about, so more power to you.

[ToTransferOrNot]

[

You're probably doing it wrong.

Fail.

You say to the person who did minimal work 1L, transfered to a T6, and is at the top of the class there (at least for the time being), after doing minimal work.

Hate to break it to you man, but success in law school is based much more on a combination of luck, ability to sense what the professor is going to test, and focused study on various points--a kind of study that is not time consuming at all. Some high level work ethic doesn't mean a hell of a lot--I get out-worked by almost everyone.

Seriously. As smart as you make yourself out to be, you are acting like a dumbass. You have no idea who I am, what my grades are like, what my LSAT score or GPA was. You know what worked for you and I know what worked for me.
As an aside, hard work has never failed me in any facet of my life so HW and I have a special bond.

The difference, of course, is that my example is a counter-example to your argument, whereas your example doesn't counter mine. The evidence out there about the irrelevance of UGPA, as well as fierce work ethic in law school, acts to discount the sentiment that "working really hard is the key to law school." You can't say the same--saying "well, I worked really hard and did well" means nothing, because you may have done just as well, or better, at a far lower work level.

Between two people with an equal "knack," the one who works harder is going to do better. However, two people: one with a better "knack," one with a harder work ethic--in law school, my money is on the one with the knack, every day of the week. Obviously, the person who generally wins the game is the one with both.

By the way, I appologize... I don't think I'm talking about intelligence, when I say knack. There is a particular game one plays in law school. Some people are better at the unique combination of BS and efficient issue spotting that results in top grades. Trust me, my work ethic makes me suffer in the seminar setting, and I'm sure it will be something I need to improve on in firm life.

[XxSpyKEx]

[

You're probably doing it wrong.

Fail.

You say to the person who did minimal work 1L, transfered to a T6, and is at the top of the class there (at least for the time being), after doing minimal work.

Hate to break it to you man, but success in law school is based much more on a combination of luck, ability to sense what the professor is going to test, and focused study on various points--a kind of study that is not time consuming at all. Some high level work ethic doesn't mean a hell of a lot--I get out-worked by almost everyone.

+1. For FWIW, work ethic really has little to do with grades. I think common sense goes a lot further (which is something a lot people seem to lack in law school). It amuses me how many people fail to do basic things like attending class, paying attention in class, and taking notes, but then will spend countless hours reading supplements trying to make up for what they missed in class. The problem with that is law school is incredibly subjective and really just about leaning what the professor cares about, emphasizes, and wants to see, and emanuel's can't tell you that.

OP- I don't think your plan would be as terrible if you were at least happy with the idea of possibly graduating from the school you are attending. If you are talking about attending a t3 (or worse), in all reality it doesn't take much to to fall into the top 10-15% or so (anything beyond that luck really plays a factor because you're splitting hairs as to how many As your got versus how many A-s you got) because 95% of your class will be borderline mentally retarded. The negative is that class tends to be really difficult to pay attention in because the professor will waste so much time on really basic shit (such as the holding in a really simple case where the rule was spelled out for you).

[A'nold]

It was luck that one of my professors thought the grade scale was out of 190 (it's out of 186).

It was luck that a buddy of mine wrote a test almost identical to mine for torts, yet got 2 grade notches higher.

It was luck that 50% of my Ks final exam happened to be one big warranties fact pattern--a subject I understood without effort, for some reason.

It was luck that the vast majority of my exams have not had word limits--I get A+s when no word limits are involved, A-s and lower when they are.

But this is why I say "some combination of luck and [other things]". Luck is what makes the difference between the B+ and the A, or the A- and the A+; it probably doesn't make the difference between median and top 10%.

Those are all terrific points. Law exam grading/testing is a crapshoot. But it seems like you are saying that a random distribution is what creates the curve. This is a fine argument. If grades are totally random, people will come out the same way they do on a normal distribution curve. But the best way to hedge against a lot of this luck is to be better prepared than everyone else. Most people work hard in LS (as you mentioned, most people worked harder than you.) but some people clearly work much harder. In my experience, those people are the ones who tend to do the best, on LR, have jobs right now etc.

I do believe that you didn't work hard and did well. I don't know how well this will serve you in the long run, but that is not really what we are talking about, so more power to you.

Everyone at my school basically works as hard as one another, but the people that appeared "smart" from day one are the ones that did well this last semester, for the most part, at least from my observations.

Of course, this effect likely lessons once you get into the t30 and above.

Anyway, I still disagree 100% that luck has any major presence when it comes to law school grades. If luck really did play such a large role, the top 10% would fluctuate drastically each semester.

[kings84_wr]

One of my favorite quotes from one of my law profs is, "the only thing firms know when a student has a high gpa is that they are not both stupid and lazy but they still may be one or the other" (Side note this is the guy who hired tucker max)

I think the same thing applies to u-grad gpa. Im not trying to take away from a high gpa in U-grad, In fact im jealous of all you guys that did well, but I really don't see myself facing any disadvantage having one of the lowest gpa's at my school.

I guess it just comes down to how easy it is too suddenly become a hard worker, which is what we disagree on. Maybe Im a strange case, but I went from 0-60 pretty easily, I work probably twice as hard as all my friends. And maybe some of it is because I know that I didn't do it in undergrad and didn't like the result.

I just think its easier for a splitter to suddenly become motivated for a year. But i do know reverse splitters who did pretty well this semester too, so in the end there really is no predictive factor probably.

[ToTransferOrNot]

, and taking notes

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean notes on optimal solitaire strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

[XxSpyKEx]

It was luck that one of my professors thought the grade scale was out of 190 (it's out of 186).

It was luck that a buddy of mine wrote a test almost identical to mine for torts, yet got 2 grade notches higher.

It was luck that 50% of my Ks final exam happened to be one big warranties fact pattern--a subject I understood without effort, for some reason.

It was luck that the vast majority of my exams have not had word limits--I get A+s when no word limits are involved, A-s and lower when they are.

But this is why I say "some combination of luck and [other things]". Luck is what makes the difference between the B+ and the A, or the A- and the A+; it probably doesn't make the difference between median and top 10%.

Those are all terrific points. Law exam grading/testing is a crapshoot. But it seems like you are saying that a random distribution is what creates the curve. This is a fine argument. If grades are totally random, people will come out the same way they do on a normal distribution curve. But the best way to hedge against a lot of this luck is to be better prepared than everyone else. Most people work hard in LS (as you mentioned, most people worked harder than you.) but some people clearly work much harder. In my experience, those people are the ones who tend to do the best, on LR, have jobs right now etc.

I do believe that you didn't work hard and did well. I don't know how well this will serve you in the long run, but that is not really what we are talking about, so more power to you.

Everyone at my school basically works as hard as one another, but the people that appeared "smart" from day one are the ones that did well this last semester, for the most part, at least from my observations.

Of course, this effect likely lessons once you get into the t30 and above.

Anyway, I still disagree 100% that luck has any major presence when it comes to law school grades. If luck really did play such a large role, the top 10% would fluctuate drastically each semester.

Really? It was all us idiots that did really well at my t3 last year, and the people that appeared and acted smart kinda shut up the 2nd semester. It was actually kinda funny watching that shift in attitude after grades came out for first semester.

[rando]

The difference, of course, is that my example is a counter-example to your argument, whereas your example doesn't counter mine. The evidence out there about the irrelevance of UGPA, as well as fierce work ethic in law school, acts to discount the sentiment that "working really hard is the key to law school." You can't say the same--saying "well, I worked really hard and did well" means nothing, because you may have done just as well, or better, at a far lower work level.

Between two people with an equal "knack," the one who works harder is going to do better. However, two people: one with a better "knack," one with a harder work ethic--in law school, my money is on the one with the knack, every day of the week. Obviously, the person who generally wins the game is the one with both.

By the way, I appologize... I don't think I'm talking about intelligence, when I say knack. There is a particular game one plays in law school. Some people are better at the unique combination of BS and efficient issue spotting that results in top grades. Trust me, my work ethic makes me suffer in the seminar setting, and I'm sure it will be something I need to improve on in firm life.

Very well put. I can see why you have done so well in law school. Honestly I didn't recognize my own logical fallacy until you pointed it out, but as a badger backed into a corner, I throw one feigning final attack so that I can blind you while I flee:
You have pointed out how good your grades are due to luck. My point above, in one of the other posts was that hard work is a hedge against the law school game that you so eloquently described. I agree 100% that the LS testing regime is a game and some people have that knack. Others aren't quite so natural, but through hard work and fierce ethic I think they can equalize the fight. Taking practice exams, knowing the material cold, on and on can ingrain a lot of the same testing abilities that those with knack know to look for immediately.

[XxSpyKEx]

, and taking notes

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean notes on optimal solitaire strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

. Taking notes in class is WAY more efficient then reading that crap they assign you (what is it called, a casebook? doorstop? I forget). 99% of all I really do nowadays is attend class and take notes. It's worked out pretty well. I mean it's pretty much a guarantee that I'm going to sound retarded in class when I get called on because I never do the reading and try to pretend like I did it, but whatever, saying something smart in class when called on isn't something that's graded anyway.

[A'nold]

It was luck that one of my professors thought the grade scale was out of 190 (it's out of 186).

It was luck that a buddy of mine wrote a test almost identical to mine for torts, yet got 2 grade notches higher.

It was luck that 50% of my Ks final exam happened to be one big warranties fact pattern--a subject I understood without effort, for some reason.

It was luck that the vast majority of my exams have not had word limits--I get A+s when no word limits are involved, A-s and lower when they are.

But this is why I say "some combination of luck and [other things]". Luck is what makes the difference between the B+ and the A, or the A- and the A+; it probably doesn't make the difference between median and top 10%.

Those are all terrific points. Law exam grading/testing is a crapshoot. But it seems like you are saying that a random distribution is what creates the curve. This is a fine argument. If grades are totally random, people will come out the same way they do on a normal distribution curve. But the best way to hedge against a lot of this luck is to be better prepared than everyone else. Most people work hard in LS (as you mentioned, most people worked harder than you.) but some people clearly work much harder. In my experience, those people are the ones who tend to do the best, on LR, have jobs right now etc.

I do believe that you didn't work hard and did well. I don't know how well this will serve you in the long run, but that is not really what we are talking about, so more power to you.

Everyone at my school basically works as hard as one another, but the people that appeared "smart" from day one are the ones that did well this last semester, for the most part, at least from my observations.

Of course, this effect likely lessons once you get into the t30 and above.

Anyway, I still disagree 100% that luck has any major presence when it comes to law school grades. If luck really did play such a large role, the top 10% would fluctuate drastically each semester.

Really? It was all us idiots that did really well at my t3 last year, and the people that appeared and acted smart kinda shut up the 2nd semester. It was actually kinda funny watching that shift in attitude after grades came out for first semester.

My bad for not explaining myself further. What I meant to say is the people who were ACTUALLY smart, not people that thought they were appearing smart, did well. I loved watching the gunners shut up as well. I'm talking about the quiet guy that gets cold called twice a semester and just floors you with the response, not the douche gunner that talks like Kelsey Grammar (I don't know how to spell his name, haha).

[ToTransferOrNot]

Yeah, I don't want to make work ethic sound completely irrelevant. It's not; it's more about what kind of work is done and how that work is approached, which I feel is part of the 'knack' I mentioned.

For example--practice exams, knack or not, are tools most people use. This is one of those points where "the person with the knack + the work wins". You would be surprised at the number of people who have a really high work ethic, but a fairly low level of awareness about how to *apply* that work ethic. For example, I strongly feel that doing a massive amount of outlining BEFORE you take any practice tests is not only a waste of time, but detrimental--if you take a practice exam first, it illuminates where you are defficient, which helps you focus your outlining time *and* avoids clogging your head, and outline, with meaningless material.

In other words, people with a knack use practice exams as diagnostics and practice, but they also use them as primary study tools in their own right.

The same can be said for supplements, and knowing what to talk to professors about. I almost *always* am able to predict the subject matter of exams based on conversations with profs--the Ks exam was a huge exception. More than once I've gotten profs to essentially tell me the A+ exam answer via office hours discussions; I always, always take notes on conversations with my professors (after I leave, of course).

But yeah, I'm not trying to completely discount the importance of work. All I meant to imply was that the important things are A.) Knowing how to work, and B.) Knowing how to deftly apply the work.

[XxSpyKEx]

talk to professors .... conversations with profs .... I always, always take notes on conversations with my professors (after I leave, of course).

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean having conversation with your friends while drinking beers and taking notes on NCAA gambling strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

[ToTransferOrNot]

talk to professors .... conversations with profs .... I always, always take notes on conversations with my professors (after I leave, of course).

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean having conversation with your friends while drinking beers and taking notes on NCAA gambling strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

Well played.

[rando]

talk to professors .... conversations with profs .... I always, always take notes on conversations with my professors (after I leave, of course).

Dude, I knew you were a gunner.

Do you mean having conversation with your friends while drinking beers and taking notes on NCAA gambling strategy? This is the only way to salvage yourself.

Well played.

Best thread ever. I am enlightened in so many ways. And from a very sad intro; "Fellow pre-1L Transfers"

[vanwinkle]

2 caveats that would make me disagree with all the posters discouraging this:

1. If you wouldn't mind graduating from the school you are attending; and
2. You actually want to be a lawyer more than any other (attainable) career and are not just doing it "for the money."

Going to a school that you hate because you want to make bank after transfering is the horrible idea, not going to a school you like and would be happy with as a backup and will still make you happy upon graduation b/c you will be a lawyer. If 160k is the only thing that will make you happy (or the equivalent big bucks relative to your own happiness) then doing this is a bad idea.

I went in with the idea of transferring but set myself up (at least I hope so) so I would be happy even without transferring.

This is the appropriate strategy. Hoping to transfer is okay; counting on transferring is not. As long as you realize that 100% of the people at your school want the top 10% grades it will take to make a meaningful transfer, and that you could end up being in the 90% that doesn't get them, this is okay to aim for as a best-case (but not an only-case) scenario.

[09042014]

Meh. LSAT may be the best indicator, but it is still an awful indicator.

If everyone were on equal footing as far as hours spent studying, methods, etc. I'd almost say it could predict within 20% a student's first year ranking (relative to classmates).

Also, if you are FAR above a school's 75th, with a good amount of work put in, you should definitely make top 20% or you didn't work hard enough, IMO.

And this explains the fact that transfer students typically do very well at their transfer schools, despite presumably being at the very, very bottom of the LSAT pile... how?

The LSAT isn't perfect. But transfers are people who proved they are better than their LSAT, and that means only considering them is a biased sample. You are only taking into account people who ended up doing better.

It'd be like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer by taking a group of people without Cancer and saying some of them smoke.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Haven't the numbers on entering LSAT vs. ultimate class rank already been done? I'm not arguing that there is any better metric to use--I certainly don't think UGPA does it--I'm just saying that it still sucks. Its predictive value is largely non-existent. If anyone has any studies to show otherwise, I would certainly bow to the numbers.

I honestly think the only realistic "metric" would be to go back to having legitimate pre-law undergrad "majors", and use those like med schools use pre-med backgrounds. Med schools still have the (MCAT, I believe), though--and I think that resurrecting the idea of pre-law programs is god awful. Certainly not worth any positive impact it would have on law school admissions.

[XxSpyKEx]

Meh. LSAT may be the best indicator, but it is still an awful indicator.

If everyone were on equal footing as far as hours spent studying, methods, etc. I'd almost say it could predict within 20% a student's first year ranking (relative to classmates).

Also, if you are FAR above a school's 75th, with a good amount of work put in, you should definitely make top 20% or you didn't work hard enough, IMO.

And this explains the fact that transfer students typically do very well at their transfer schools, despite presumably being at the very, very bottom of the LSAT pile... how?

The LSAT isn't perfect. But transfers are people who proved they are better than their LSAT, and that means only considering them is a biased sample. You are only taking into account people who ended up doing better.

It'd be like saying smoking doesn't cause cancer by taking a group of people without Cancer and saying some of them smoke.

I don't think the correlation between the LSAT and actual law school performance is anywhere near the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. I recall seeing .4 correlation somewhere before, which is not particularly great. However, the correlation for UGPA and LSGPA was even lower. I think the reason that those 2 are used as metrics for law school admissions is merely because there really isn’t anything better to use.

ToTransferOrNot- pre-law still exists. It’s just a minor for people who want to go to law school. I think it’s actually just a couple classes and besides that some people talk about the law school application process, including the LSAT, etc (at least that’s what it was at my UG). I didn’t do it, but if you were to actually go to the same UG for 4 years (as oppose to transferring from a community college), then I could see how it would make sense (I think they just fit it into the general education requirements). However, I don’t think they take any actual law school type courses by any means.

I think pre-med is the same (i.e. it is just a minor). I know a couple people that went to med school from my high school and they were hard science majors – I believe you just need to take certain classes to be eligible for the MCAT and med school, but besides that the application process seems similar to the law school application process.

Maybe you were thinking about LLBs (bachelors of law)? I read something about those on wikipedia some time ago, but I really don’t recall how those worked (maybe they were like a pre-real law school?).