Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About TdK

  • Rank

  1. Now we have the issue of defining greatness. I do agree with you in a sense, though.
  2. It appears what I considered an outlier may not be! Although, for what it’s worth, my philosophy program didn’t have students scoring As without putting in serious effort into their papers, and my LSAT review group didn’t have anyone nailing 160 from the start.
  3. I'm basing that off of my intuition. I'm open to being wrong, of course. My point, or at least one of them, was that great lawyers don't need to be brilliant or markedly intelligent. They need to be ambitious and have a strong work ethic, above all else. You noted you had to change your work habits. Even though you didn't have to work hard to achieve your great grades and LSAT score (which I assume makes you rather intelligent, at least in one sense of the word), that wouldn't be sufficient to be a great, or even good, lawyer.
  4. I suppose you would have to have a great deal of logical intelligence to score a 178 or something similar. Although, what can we say about the person who studies for 8 months, 5 days a week to score that 178? Perhaps they cold-scored a 150. Are they more intelligent than the person who studied for 4 weeks and scored a 160? I don't know the answer, but it's interesting to consider what we view as intelligence. At least I find it interesting.
  5. I suppose all we'll receive here are individual cases. I think someone with a horrible work ethic who managed to achieve a very high GPA and LSAT would be an outlier, though. In a way, I think you make my point; if you had kept the same work ethic, you'd probably be a terrible lawyer.
  6. I've always been curious about the connection between high LSAT / GPAs and top-tier lawyers. I view achieving a fantastic LSAT and GPA as indicia of a strong work ethic and ambition, not necessarily intelligence. I think that's what it takes to be a top-tier lawyer, a very strong work ethic and ambition. I'm genuinely not sure, though. I guess this discussion requires a thorough understanding of what we mean by intelligence. Theoretical physicists seem to be brilliant. A top M&A lawyer? I'm not sure. Perhaps you didn't imply what I thought you implied, either. If that's the case, my apologies. If this is too off-topic, feel free to split or move the post. I would love to hear what people think, though. Edit 1 - Reading your most recent post, I think I may have misinterpreted what I quoted. Apologies!
  7. I don't think the majority of law students reason like that. If they do, I don't think it's possible to protect them from their inevitable self-destruction. I don't think it's fair or desirable that others should walk on eggshells around these individuals, either. By this age, it's up to the person to determine what's valuable. If they fall down this line of reasoning, that's their fault. Again, I don't agree that one ought to keep their dissatisfaction limited to their "very close friends and families." If they air their frustration or feelings of failure with classmates, it's up to the classmates to interpret that failure. If they determine that they too are a failure because they have two Bs and won't get a position with Davies, I would say there's a deeper problem with their reasoning and thinking. A complaint from their classmate didn't create a mental health issue. Let's not forget that it is possible for people to be curious. The users asking how much partners make may just be asking out of interest. A final point to consider is that people are more intelligent, hardworking, creative and passionate than others. These people tend to find their way to the top (I'm not sure how to define the top, and if I try I may open a large can of worms). If this keeps you up at night, you're going to have many problems beyond the stresses that law school and job applications bring. The people with the highest standards and goals for themselves do not owe it to anyone to keep their concerns to a particular group of people.
  8. I don't think it's necessarily a negative for someone to be upset over one B+. People get to decide what their goals are. If their goal is to achieve straight As, who are we to tell them they shouldn't be upset, and it's a negative (a negative for who? The profession? The individual?) that they have such expectations and become distraught when they aren't met? The same principle stands for failing to get into the firm of their desires. I do understand providence's point though; sometimes perspective is needed. I also think students complain for the sake of complaining sometimes. Their distress is not subjectively felt as an "earth-shattering tragedy" as previously mentioned. I'm sure some are genuinely broken over their failure to get into a sister firm or achieve straight As, but not all. Slightly off-topic, but I once observed a trial (held outside of Toronto) where one point of contention was the precise meaning of "Bay Street." When the plaintiff answered along the lines of prestige and success, the presiding judge and counsel cracked a fair number of jokes. Needless to say, I don't think they agreed with the proposed meaning of Bay Street.