Top Law Schools

b290 wrote:I must’ve hit a nerve, or several. I give my $.02 because...that’s what you’re trained to do...as a counselor at law (You know, the purpose of this entire forum?). Whatever you find “condescending,” in my posts is particular to an inferiority complex which you’ll have to address.

SomewhatLearnedHand wrote:Whatever your intent was is sorta irrelevant now. This thread has helped no one and at best serves as a warning to 0L's to make sure you actually want to go to law school before you get reamed out by 3 years worth of debt.

This.

My $.02

Wow. This is like a caricature of an insufferable law student.

I love the people rushing to the OP's defense like it's incomprehensible how anyone could have thought maybe it was a bad idea for someone who failed out of law school to give tips on how to succeed in law school.

No one is negating the value of the OP's story as a cautionary tale. The issue is that it went beyond that when the OP decided to start telling people what makes for a successful student. As Nony pointed out earlier, people fail and succeed for various reasons. The OP can tell us about his failing out, but that doesn't give anyone a recipe for success, no matter how "courageous" it is.

UBETutoring wrote:

SomewhatLearnedHand wrote:Its not elitist to look at the employment data from a school and objectively say that its not very good.

My response was to the people saying the thread contains useless information. Having tutored the LSAT for 7 years, I have had students who have matriculated to schools like Harvard and like Drexel. The latter group frequently has the ability to get a much better LSAT score, but is unable/unwilling to commit themselves to studying on a consistent basis with the idea that they'll work harder in law school. Based on OP's writing ability, he falls into this group. What many fail to realize is that those who could not bring themselves to focus on the LSAT/UG are much likelier to be unable to focus once in law school. The ability to work hard is a skill; the fact that anyone can acquire the ability does not preclude it from being a skill.

OP demonstrated significant courage to come here, and admit that he failed. It takes a great deal of maturity to admit you failed even to a group of strangers on an anonymous forum, and this courage should be commended. It should serve as a warning to anyone that is considering attending these schools. Reasonable minds can differ on how much work is necessary to do well at any law school, even a top school. However, hard work is a necessary condition to placing at the top of the class and students at Drexel go in aiming to place at the top of the class. I'd argue that depending on one's goals, going to a better law school affords them ability to not have to work hard.

all you really said with this post was "retake" and "assume median" which is standard TLS advice. the other stuff is literal nonsense. like: "The ability to work hard is a skill; the fact that anyone can acquire the ability does not preclude it from being a skill." What are you going on about? Nobody thinks that if an "ability" is obtainable, it is precluded from being a skill. Everyone knows that skills are acquirable but natural talent is not.

Also, i'd be pissed if i paid for a tutor and still ended up going to drexel.

cavalier1138 wrote:I love the people rushing to the OP's defense like it's incomprehensible how anyone could have thought maybe it was a bad idea for someone who failed out of law school to give tips on how to succeed in law school.

No one is negating the value of the OP's story as a cautionary tale. The issue is that it went beyond that when the OP decided to start telling people what makes for a successful student. As Nony pointed out earlier, people fail and succeed for various reasons. The OP can tell us about his failing out, but that doesn't give anyone a recipe for success, no matter how "courageous" it is.

Why would it be incomprehensible, getting hung up on someone's credentials is exactly what I'd expect of TLS.

Aergia wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread. OP gave some pretty innocuous and reasonable advice. He basically just said you should really engage with the material when doing the usual shit you're supposed to do rather than thoughtlessly plugging away. Get your heads out of your asses people.

People are railing at OP here because his post is causing some serious anxiety for 1Ls.

For any 1Ls still reading: don't fret.

You don't have to have studied your balls off all semester to get a median grade. Outline your class, filling in the blanks for classes you missed, take some practice tests, and you will be fine.

It takes a lot to fail out of law school, especially a school like Drexel. The OP's grades likely weren't forced that low by a curve--they were probably discretionary grades. Meaning, his exams answers were so bad that a professor elected to give him a failing grade even though that's not required.

The warning of "I didn't study hard enough, so if you want to not fail, you have to study harder than I did!" is nonsense. Unless the OP is taking some creative liberties with the meaning of "did some practice exams and hypos along the way," people who take bad notes, make an outline, and do some practice exams along the way will land around median. They certainly won't fail out.

You have to work hard for an A, or an A+ if that's possible, but you really don't have to work that hard to stay in good academic standing.

Edited-

Also, "research, writing, and discovering complex solutions to complex problems" is nowhere near necessary for good 1L grades. The only research you will ever do during 1L is for your LRW class.

This is also pretty terrible timing for 1Ls, since exams are drawing near for those in a semester system school.

Aergia wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:I love the people rushing to the OP's defense like it's incomprehensible how anyone could have thought maybe it was a bad idea for someone who failed out of law school to give tips on how to succeed in law school.

No one is negating the value of the OP's story as a cautionary tale. The issue is that it went beyond that when the OP decided to start telling people what makes for a successful student. As Nony pointed out earlier, people fail and succeed for various reasons. The OP can tell us about his failing out, but that doesn't give anyone a recipe for success, no matter how "courageous" it is.

Why would it be incomprehensible, getting hung up on someone's credentials is exactly what I'd expect of TLS.

Right. Pointing out that someone who failed out of law school doesn't actually know how to succeed in law school is "getting hung up on someone's credentials." That makes total sense and isn't the world's worst false equivalency.

cavalier1138 wrote:I love the people rushing to the OP's defense like it's incomprehensible how anyone could have thought maybe it was a bad idea for someone who failed out of law school to give tips on how to succeed in law school.

No one is negating the value of the OP's story as a cautionary tale. The issue is that it went beyond that when the OP decided to start telling people what makes for a successful student. As Nony pointed out earlier, people fail and succeed for various reasons. The OP can tell us about his failing out, but that doesn't give anyone a recipe for success, no matter how "courageous" it is.

I think at least some of the people "rushing" to the OP's defense are doing so because of the jackassery you and gunner engaged in right at the start of the thread. You both went out of your way to trash the guy's law school and make it apparent to him that he wasn't good enough to get into any decent law school. It made you both look like snotty children. The guy included his numbers in the OP. It was apparent to anyone reading the thread that he didn't go to Penn. There was no reason to do what you two did other than to try and make the guy feel bad.

It's hard to respect that sort of behavior. It's not a good look for you.

lavarman84 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:I love the people rushing to the OP's defense like it's incomprehensible how anyone could have thought maybe it was a bad idea for someone who failed out of law school to give tips on how to succeed in law school.

No one is negating the value of the OP's story as a cautionary tale. The issue is that it went beyond that when the OP decided to start telling people what makes for a successful student. As Nony pointed out earlier, people fail and succeed for various reasons. The OP can tell us about his failing out, but that doesn't give anyone a recipe for success, no matter how "courageous" it is.

I think at least some of the people "rushing" to the OP's defense are doing so because of the jackassery you and gunner engaged in right at the start of the thread. You both went out of your way to trash the guy's law school and make it apparent to him that he wasn't good enough to get into any decent law school. It made you both look like snotty children. The guy included his numbers in the OP. It was apparent to anyone reading the thread that he didn't go to Penn. There was no reason to do what you two did other than to try and make the guy feel bad.

It's hard to respect that sort of behavior. It's not a good look for you.

So I had to go back and read the comments you're referring to. I can't speak to the intentions of other posters, but I specifically noted that the OP was incorrect in referring to Drexel as a "good law school" because of their practice of using conditional scholarships and not providing decent outcomes for their students. It had nothing to do with whether or not the OP was "good enough." And it's totally unrelated to the point that people have actually been trying to defend the OP on: he is not qualified to offer advice to law students on how to perform well in law school.

Also, notice that I didn't need to resort to name-calling or personal barbs to get that point across? Try it sometime.

pancakes3 wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:

SomewhatLearnedHand wrote:Its not elitist to look at the employment data from a school and objectively say that its not very good.

My response was to the people saying the thread contains useless information. Having tutored the LSAT for 7 years, I have had students who have matriculated to schools like Harvard and like Drexel. The latter group frequently has the ability to get a much better LSAT score, but is unable/unwilling to commit themselves to studying on a consistent basis with the idea that they'll work harder in law school. Based on OP's writing ability, he falls into this group. What many fail to realize is that those who could not bring themselves to focus on the LSAT/UG are much likelier to be unable to focus once in law school. The ability to work hard is a skill; the fact that anyone can acquire the ability does not preclude it from being a skill.

OP demonstrated significant courage to come here, and admit that he failed. It takes a great deal of maturity to admit you failed even to a group of strangers on an anonymous forum, and this courage should be commended. It should serve as a warning to anyone that is considering attending these schools. Reasonable minds can differ on how much work is necessary to do well at any law school, even a top school. However, hard work is a necessary condition to placing at the top of the class and students at Drexel go in aiming to place at the top of the class. I'd argue that depending on one's goals, going to a better law school affords them ability to not have to work hard.

all you really said with this post was "retake" and "assume median" which is standard TLS advice. the other stuff is literal nonsense. like: "The ability to work hard is a skill; the fact that anyone can acquire the ability does not preclude it from being a skill." What are you going on about? Nobody thinks that if an "ability" is obtainable, it is precluded from being a skill. Everyone knows that skills are acquirable but natural talent is not.

Also, i'd be pissed if i paid for a tutor and still ended up going to drexel.

1.) The implication that 10 hours or o so of tutoring should take someone in the mid-140's into the 170's is ludicrous. While this has happened, it requires significant studying on the part of the student. My point was that the people who can't commit to consistently self studying for 1-2 hours per day for the LSAT tend to struggle to consistently studying 8-10 hours per day in law school.

2.) I was specifically responding to the douchebaggery in this thread. The idea that people who failed out of law school are inherently unable to provide notes on how to do well in law school is elitist and dumb. I did very well at a very good law school, and would be the first to admit that OP's advise is as good as mine. With regards to Cavalier, I was under the impression that UVA specifically tries to avoid extending offers to snobs.

UBETutoring wrote:2.) I was specifically responding to the douchebaggery in this thread. The idea that people who failed out of law school are inherently unable to provide notes on how to do well in law school is elitist and dumb. I did very well at a very good law school, and would be the first to admit that OP's advise is as good as mine. With regards to Cavalier, I was under the impression that UVA specifically tries to avoid extending offers to snobs.

1. I don't go to UVA.
2. You clearly haven't been anywhere near Mr. Jefferson's University.
3. I ran track in high school. Should I give advice on how to train for the Olympics?

UBETutoring wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:

SomewhatLearnedHand wrote:Its not elitist to look at the employment data from a school and objectively say that its not very good.

My response was to the people saying the thread contains useless information. Having tutored the LSAT for 7 years, I have had students who have matriculated to schools like Harvard and like Drexel. The latter group frequently has the ability to get a much better LSAT score, but is unable/unwilling to commit themselves to studying on a consistent basis with the idea that they'll work harder in law school. Based on OP's writing ability, he falls into this group. What many fail to realize is that those who could not bring themselves to focus on the LSAT/UG are much likelier to be unable to focus once in law school. The ability to work hard is a skill; the fact that anyone can acquire the ability does not preclude it from being a skill.

OP demonstrated significant courage to come here, and admit that he failed. It takes a great deal of maturity to admit you failed even to a group of strangers on an anonymous forum, and this courage should be commended. It should serve as a warning to anyone that is considering attending these schools. Reasonable minds can differ on how much work is necessary to do well at any law school, even a top school. However, hard work is a necessary condition to placing at the top of the class and students at Drexel go in aiming to place at the top of the class. I'd argue that depending on one's goals, going to a better law school affords them ability to not have to work hard.

all you really said with this post was "retake" and "assume median" which is standard TLS advice. the other stuff is literal nonsense. like: "The ability to work hard is a skill; the fact that anyone can acquire the ability does not preclude it from being a skill." What are you going on about? Nobody thinks that if an "ability" is obtainable, it is precluded from being a skill. Everyone knows that skills are acquirable but natural talent is not.

Also, i'd be pissed if i paid for a tutor and still ended up going to drexel.

1.) The implication that 10 hours or o so of tutoring should take someone in the mid-140's into the 170's is ludicrous. While this has happened, it requires significant studying on the part of the student. My point was that the people who can't commit to consistently self studying for 1-2 hours per day for the LSAT tend to struggle to consistently studying 8-10 hours per day in law school.

2.) I was specifically responding to the douchebaggery in this thread. The idea that people who failed out of law school are inherently unable to provide notes on how to do well in law school is elitist and dumb. I did very well at a very good law school, and would be the first to admit that OP's advise is as good as mine. With regards to Cavalier, I was under the impression that UVA specifically tries to avoid extending offers to snobs.

WTF?

UBETutoring wrote:I did very well at a very good law school, and would be the first to admit that OP's advise is as good as mine.

OP's advice amounts to "you better study harder than I did, or else you're going to fail out/perform very poorly!"/"you better be ready to study hard as hell!" Is that what you'd adopt as your own?

The vast amounts of people who did the same amount--or even less--work than the OP but still ended up with good grades/median grades/good academic standing proves that to be wrong.

If you studied 8-10 hours a day and got good grades, good for you. That doesn't mean that studying 8-10 hours/day is anywhere near required to get good grades in law school (assuming going to class doesn't count as "studying", but even then, not necessary).

cavalier1138 wrote:

lavarman84 wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:I love the people rushing to the OP's defense like it's incomprehensible how anyone could have thought maybe it was a bad idea for someone who failed out of law school to give tips on how to succeed in law school.

No one is negating the value of the OP's story as a cautionary tale. The issue is that it went beyond that when the OP decided to start telling people what makes for a successful student. As Nony pointed out earlier, people fail and succeed for various reasons. The OP can tell us about his failing out, but that doesn't give anyone a recipe for success, no matter how "courageous" it is.

I think at least some of the people "rushing" to the OP's defense are doing so because of the jackassery you and gunner engaged in right at the start of the thread. You both went out of your way to trash the guy's law school and make it apparent to him that he wasn't good enough to get into any decent law school. It made you both look like snotty children. The guy included his numbers in the OP. It was apparent to anyone reading the thread that he didn't go to Penn. There was no reason to do what you two did other than to try and make the guy feel bad.

It's hard to respect that sort of behavior. It's not a good look for you.

So I had to go back and read the comments you're referring to. I can't speak to the intentions of other posters, but I specifically noted that the OP was incorrect in referring to Drexel as a "good law school" because of their practice of using conditional scholarships and not providing decent outcomes for their students. It had nothing to do with whether or not the OP was "good enough."

It had everything to do with you wanting to tell the OP he was not good enough. I already nipped this explanation in the bud. He already posted his numbers and said he had a conditional scholarship. Everyone knew that he didn't go to Penn. Beyond that, it didn't much matter which of the Philly law schools he was attending. You simply were trying to be a jerk. At least own it. Don't try to act like you were doing anyone any favors.

And it's totally unrelated to the point that people have actually been trying to defend the OP on: he is not qualified to offer advice to law students on how to perform well in law school.

Also, notice that I didn't need to resort to name-calling or personal barbs to get that point across? Try it sometime.

Feel free to resort to those things. It won't affect my opinion of you. I already don't respect you because of how you treat people. It certainly won't change that. Your digs at the OP over his numbers and law school were entirely unnecessary. You simply did it to be a jerk to the guy.

Can we get some quotes of these digs and such? I don't feel like re-reading the whole thread, but from what I remember, the comments were along the lines of:

"OP don't give advice because you failed out" (aka not-qualified for advice-giving).

"Drexel is not a "good" school, as OP claims it is, when measured by employment outcomes" (which is just objectively true, which is why law school is often not a good investment at lower tier schools, which doesn't make people at low tier schools bad/lesser people, but comments like these are meant to inform prospective students in their decision to attend law school, because economically, it often becomes an employment gamble when going to a school like Drexel).

Also, it's not exactly demeaning OP to give him a hard time for a 155 LSAT and a low GPA. OP is self-claimed lazy as they come, so it's not like posters here have been acting that "elitist" because OP isn't someone that worked hard and was only able to come up with a 155 LSAT after hundreds of prep hours. OP didn't try, and has apparently never tried in anything academically. He shouldn't give advice about anything academic, because he's never achieved any measure of success in academics.

OP probably can give me some advice about being a soccer goalie, and that's fine. It doesn't make him a bad person or me any better, but it does mean he's unqualified to tell law school students really anything about law school success.

Hard work is neither necessary nor sufficent to doing well in law school, but it’s necessary to beig at the top of the curve. Almost everyone that grades onto law review works hard. If we take 2 people with similar stats - one studies 60 hours a week and the other studies 5 hours of week, the former has a gargantuan advantage. If the former has any idea what they’re doing whatsoever and the latter isn’t naturally gifted at law school exams, it’s very likely the former will place better. The problem with predictngn the former’s 1L grades is that a meaningful percentage of people will be studying between 30-60 hours a week.

lavarman84 wrote:It had everything to do with you wanting to tell the OP he was not good enough. I already nipped this explanation in the bud. He already posted his numbers and said he had a conditional scholarship. Everyone knew that he didn't go to Penn. Beyond that, it didn't much matter which of the Philly law schools he was attending. You simply were trying to be a jerk. At least own it. Don't try to act like you were doing anyone any favors.

And it's totally unrelated to the point that people have actually been trying to defend the OP on: he is not qualified to offer advice to law students on how to perform well in law school.

Also, notice that I didn't need to resort to name-calling or personal barbs to get that point across? Try it sometime.

Feel free to resort to those things. It won't affect my opinion of you. I already don't respect you because of how you treat people. It certainly won't change that. Your digs at the OP over his numbers and law school were entirely unnecessary. You simply did it to be a jerk to the guy.

QFP (and for horrific inaccuracy).

Thankfully, other people actually read the posts, and I have literally no stake in whether you "respect" me. But I truly wonder whether you would respect a poster who repeatedly resorts to ad hominem and baseless attacks because they feel hurt on behalf of another stranger on the internet. I do have a stake in making sure people like the OP don't drive 1Ls crazy with study tips, and that's been my only interest in posting in this inane mockery of a thread.

cavalier1138 wrote:

lavarman84 wrote:It had everything to do with you wanting to tell the OP he was not good enough. I already nipped this explanation in the bud. He already posted his numbers and said he had a conditional scholarship. Everyone knew that he didn't go to Penn. Beyond that, it didn't much matter which of the Philly law schools he was attending. You simply were trying to be a jerk. At least own it. Don't try to act like you were doing anyone any favors.

And it's totally unrelated to the point that people have actually been trying to defend the OP on: he is not qualified to offer advice to law students on how to perform well in law school.

Also, notice that I didn't need to resort to name-calling or personal barbs to get that point across? Try it sometime.

Feel free to resort to those things. It won't affect my opinion of you. I already don't respect you because of how you treat people. It certainly won't change that. Your digs at the OP over his numbers and law school were entirely unnecessary. You simply did it to be a jerk to the guy.

QFP (and for horrific inaccuracy).

Thankfully, other people actually read the posts, and I have literally no stake in whether you "respect" me. But I truly wonder whether you would respect a poster who repeatedly resorts to ad hominem and baseless attacks because they feel hurt on behalf of another stranger on the internet. I do have a stake in making sure people like the OP don't drive 1Ls crazy with study tips, and that's been my only interest in posting in this inane mockery of a thread.

cavalier1138 wrote:

Gunner19 wrote:The biggest shock to me here is that there are law schools out there that would give a $30K/year scholly to someone with a 155 lsat and 2.7 gpa. Yikes.

I was slightly more shocked that the OP still referred to the school as "a good Philadelphia law school."

cavalier1138 wrote:

jasperjones wrote:

cavalier1138 wrote:

Gunner19 wrote:The biggest shock to me here is that there are law schools out there that would give a $30K/year scholly to someone with a 155 lsat and 2.7 gpa. Yikes.

I was slightly more shocked that the OP still referred to the school as "a good Philadelphia law school."

Believe it or not, it is. And it didn't give me 30k right out the gate. I narrowed my schools down to two selections and told school X that school Y was offering me 15k, which was more than X was offering me, and provided X documentation demonstrating as much and asked if X could increase. They did. Then provided Y with documentation demonstrating that X increased and asked Y if they could increase their scholarship offer, which they did. Ultimately X increased to 30k. Not sure if other students are leveraging their schools' offers against each other but it was a great way for me to maximize my scholarship offer.

I don't believe it.

I mainly don't believe it because you can only be talking about one or two schools in the area, and no school in Philly with good employment outcomes is taking students with your numbers, let alone with scholarships. Odds are that if you'd stayed, you probably would have had an excellent chance of still not having a job as a practicing lawyer.

Enough said.

TLS is a forum where you can expect decent advice delivered in an unnecessarily dickish manner. Of course, none of these people would speak this way in real life, but that's how anonymity works. No one should be surprised by that at this point.

It’s not “elitist” to say that one isn’t qualified to dispense advice on something, especially when later experience changes perspective (and memory). Nor is it such when pointing out that one who isn’t “successful” in a field has no business giving how-to’s to the uninitiated.

All of this could’ve been avoided if the original post was more organized. No one would have to wonder/chastise on whether it was an ad hoc pity party/life coaching. That’s on the poster, not detractors.

Please, let this thread die.

My $.02

AspiringAspirant wrote:TLS is a forum where you can expect decent advice delivered in an unnecessarily dickish manner. Of course, none of these people would speak this way in real life, but that's how anonymity works. No one should be surprised by that at this point.

Yep, that is the problem. At this point, it's not surprise. It's just disappointment.

AspiringAspirant wrote:TLS is a forum where you can expect decent advice delivered in an unnecessarily dickish manner. Of course, none of these people would speak this way in real life, but that's how anonymity works. No one should be surprised by that at this point.

I’ve been around here a long time.
This is true, and quite funny.

Some day these forums will be used as evidence in a deepdive study on millennials and their social skills.
I envy so many on here who can have such confidence, yet remain so devoid of any life experience that truly builds context.

I recall many times seeing an innocent new person post their few first questions/replys, and then a year later here is that same person speaking with authority, arguing, and using all of the corny TLS snark-jargon, as if that’s a right of passage and somehow adds credibility.

It is entertaining now, whereas it used to frustrate me.

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Aergia wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread. OP gave some pretty innocuous and reasonable advice. He basically just said you should really engage with the material when doing the usual shit you're supposed to do rather than thoughtlessly plugging away. Get your heads out of your asses people.

People are railing at OP here because his post is causing some serious anxiety for 1Ls.

For any 1Ls still reading: don't fret.

You don't have to have studied your balls off all semester to get a median grade. Outline your class, filling in the blanks for classes you missed, take some practice tests, and you will be fine.

It takes a lot to fail out of law school, especially a school like Drexel. The OP's grades likely weren't forced that low by a curve--they were probably discretionary grades. Meaning, his exams answers were so bad that a professor elected to give him a failing grade even though that's not required.

The warning of "I didn't study hard enough, so if you want to not fail, you have to study harder than I did!" is nonsense. Unless the OP is taking some creative liberties with the meaning of "did some practice exams and hypos along the way," people who take bad notes, make an outline, and do some practice exams along the way will land around median. They certainly won't fail out.

You have to work hard for an A, or an A+ if that's possible, but you really don't have to work that hard to stay in good academic standing.

Edited-

Also, "research, writing, and discovering complex solutions to complex problems" is nowhere near necessary for good 1L grades. The only research you will ever do during 1L is for your LRW class.

This is also pretty terrible timing for 1Ls, since exams are drawing near for those in a semester system school.

Just read this. After taking my first exam, I left the room telling myself "you'll be fine". I may need to do some more work to get to that top 10 percentile, but I will do well enough to do well enough at life given what I am doing now. Well, assuming this test doesn't give me some illusion of grandeur.