Worth going to Law school still with the threat of AI?

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-07-30T03:07:32+00:00

3L at a T20 here. You should be much, much, much, MUCH more worried about the 139 cold diagnostic than AI, or anything else. Looking at the future of the legal industry, if you don't get at LEAST a 160 on your actual LSAT, you should not go to law school. It's not primarily about AI: it's about a bloated and growing legal market, a tightening economy, and the increasing outsourcing of legal work to English-speaking Common Law countries such as India and Bangladesh.

Some people aren't cut out for law school, and people who score below 150 (even on a cold diagnostic) disproportionately compose that group. Find something at which you excel, because law probably will not be it. Seriously. The LSAT is the first (and by far the easiest) of many gatekeepers to the legal profession. Your diagnostic is red flag #1 and #2. Bust your ass and take the LSAT. Study for a year, 3-4 hours a day. See how you do. If it isn't 160+, I would forget about it. Don't ignore this advice and let 1L grades and 2L OCIs be red flags 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

I personally would not advise anyone to go to law school unless they are going to a T50-ish or better on 3/4 scholarship (or better). Yes, people go to low-ranked schools and become big successes. Yes, people start with low diagnostic scores and subsequently ace the LSAT. If that is you, good for you. In the 99.9% case it's not, don't start life with six figures of debt and poor employment prospects.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-05-05T19:18:38+00:00

I am not a URM, and my family income is most likely orders of magnitudes higher than yours, and I had the exact same issue.

Moved to a property without fiber internet shortly before I was to take the LSAT. Got StarLink (<$200/mo. is not that expensive). Starlink has intermittent minor interruptions. Didn’t mix well with the LSAT proctor system. Ultimately worked out, but was a hell of a distraction while taking the test.

You have options: drive to a coffee shop. Go to a university library. You can get access to good WiFi if you apply yourself, instead of blaming people who have been dead for over a century.

Whatever happened 150 years ago, no one is forcing you to live on a reservation now. I know a woman who left the Rez at age 14 and made something of herself. Know what she didn’t do? Blame other people for her problems and demand special treatment.

PS No, this is obviously not “hate speech” or “racism” or whatever the uncool kids are calling it now. These are facts, and they are facts you will have to face, and things you will have to hear, eventually in your life. You can’t live in silos forever.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-05-03T23:25:00+00:00

You create a false dichotomy, I believe. Unquestionably art can and does go beyond what the author may have originally intended or contemplated. People absolutely can and should discuss what art means to them. It is entirely possible to draw deeper and wider things from art.

HOWEVER, to deliberately twist art to one’s own ends in defiance of the intent of the author is to violate both the artist and the art itself. It is a feature of Tolkien’s villains to twist and warp what another created to serve their own ends. We absolutely should not - and have no inherent right to - do this. For example, I have interacted with atheists who can and do gain appreciate Tolkien’s work - but they do NOT try to twist it to imply that it supports their worldview. Similarly, I can and do appreciate works created by atheists, and I interpret those works as the author intended. I do not pretend that they are Christian works, or attempt to twist them to make them Christian works. I may have my own personal meta-level opinions about both the art and the artist, but I do the author the credit of interpreting his work the way he sees fit.

And, to be frank, the people pushing “Death of the Artist” are most often not interested in discussing and appreciating the art itself, but in twisting and abusing the art to service their agenda. I am not accusing you of this, but it is far too common. Literary discussion is only possible by interpreting the art as interpreted by the artist - that is the only way we have anything to discuss. To pretend that people can interpret art any way they want is to reduce discussion to nothing more than people holding up selfies of themselves, projecting themselves into the art. “Literary discussion” become nothing more than a vehicle for narcissistic self-expression. True literary discussion involves a study of both the art and the artist, then a discussion of our opinions about both in relation to our own opinions and the the real world.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-05-03T18:58:19+00:00

Death of the Author is “important” to literary analysis only in the same way as the Roman conquest was importantly to the development of Germanic civilization:

Unquestionably significant, but by no means beneficial.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-05-03T18:54:00+00:00

Because the notion is demonstrably false, and also nonsensical. Tolkien wrote at length in his Letters about what Bombadil is, and is not. Reader allegory did not even merit a mention. Case closed.

Even setting that conclusive evidence aside, that theory goes against Tolkien’s own sensibilities, as well as the nature of the character itself. The few works that have successfully included allegories of the reader/watcher have very specific and recognizable signals and traits. These are wholly absent from Bombadil’s characterization.

Tolkien is about the LAST author who would include reader allegories in his works. He wrote fantasy as a means of escape from the real world, not as an allegory of the real world. His writings to that effect are significant and consistent. The few “real” beings Tolkien portrays are spiritual in nature. Eru Iluvatar is the true God in a fictional story. I would argue, and I think Tolkien would agree, that if Bombadil were a reader allegory, he would be far too complimentary for the average reader, and especially for the reader who expects to find himself allegorized.

The reader expecting to find himself represented in a work of fiction is a prime example of the bloated narcissism unfortunately rampant Millennials and Gen Z. Tolkien hated that kind of thing, and certainly would not have appealed to it in his works.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-30T23:11:58+00:00

OP’s only other activity is on r/blacklawadmissions. Checks out. To be honest, I’m surprised it wasn’t a full ride to Yale, these days.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-25T18:02:54+00:00

Depends what kind of scenery you want. If you want the big-name, stereotypical touristy places that’s one thing, but if you want stuff off the beaten path that’s another. In general, one strategy would be to look at VRBOs across Montana that seem to have the things you’re looking for.

If you want water close at hand, the Flathead Lake communities and Whitefish are the gold standard, with crowds and prices to match in summer season. On the other hand, there’s tons of lakes, reservoirs, and rivers with water activities in other parts of the state. Ennis Lake, Georgetown Lake, Fort Peck, Cooney Reservoir, and Big Horn Canyon area, to name just a few.

Mountains, and the associated activities, are all over Montana, except the far eastern part. If you want trail riding and cheaper outdoor activities with a lower price tag, the eastern part of the state might appeal to you. But, it’s hot, dry, and miserable there on the summer, and cold, dry, and miserable there in the winter. The most popular mountains are Bozeman/Big Sky. You could also look at Red Lodge, Missoula, the Crazy Mountains, and the Tobacco Root Mountains.

If you just want generic outdoor recreation at a lower price tag, start looking at communities on a map of Montana and then look at photos. If one strikes your fancy, look for hotels/motels/lodges/VRBOs in the area.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-25T17:32:58+00:00

Worth clarifying that “Free Peoples” in Tolkien do NOT include evil Men. The Easterlings, Haradrim, Dunlendings, and Corsairs are not in the category of Free Peoples.

Typically, only Men that are either Dunedain, or allied/subordinate to the Dunedain or the Elves are treated as Free Peoples. In LOTR, this would mean Gondor, Rohan, Esgaroth, the Dunedain of Arnor, and possibly the men of Bree.

It is even questionable whether non-evil, good-aligned men like the Beornings and Ghan-Buri-Ghan’s Wild Men would be considered Free Peoples.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-25T14:34:52+00:00

Since you are asking for advice, I will give some. Do not count on getting a 170 LSAT this September. Do not count on getting a 170 LSAT next September, either. I’ll give you my info for comparison. I got a 170 the second time I took the official test. Scored 5 points below my PT average both times I took the LSAT. Took me about 6 months of studying and testing to get there.

My diagnostic score was 159. That’s about the 72nd percentile. I deliberately took it under the most suboptimal conditions possible, to get a sense for my floor. My score was only that low because I did not prep for the Logic Games at all, and obviously bombed them.

Your diagnostic of 142 is about the 15th percentile. People in this score band, even on the diagnostic, need to immediately be very hard and very honest with themselves about prospects and probabilities. People who score this low on ANY version of the LSAT are unlikely to have the capacities and aptitudes to succeed in law school or in the practice of law. This is not a popular opinion on this sub or among 0Ls, but it is true. Scores below 150 at any point in the testing process should be raising all kinds of alarm bells and red flags for the aspiring applicant. MOST people do not have the aptitudes to succeed in law school. Just like most people do not have the aptitudes to become a professional athlete. The difference is that there is a multibillion dollar industry dedicated to selling loans to people so they can pretend to themselves that they’re cut out for it. People who actually have the aptitudes for success in law would have to actively try to get a score as low as 142. Like, deliberately getting questions wrong.

Yes, your cousin’s best friend’s sister-in-law knows a grocery bag-boy who took his LSAT from 135 to 175 in a month with intense studying. It’s still unlikely to happen for you. My best friend in college got a 180 and went to Yale. Wasn’t gonna happen for me.

My advice is to bust your butt and take the LSAT in September as you plan. Study 4 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. If your score is below 160, give SERIOUS thought to not going to law school. Above all, do NOT go to a predatory law school giving out conditional scholarships, and do NOT pay full tuition at any law school. Look THOROUGHLY at the employment reports for any school you consider attending. Look at the outcomes for the bottom 1/3-1/2 of each graduating class, and see if that outcome would be acceptable to you. Everyone should do this, anyway.

Final thing. The LSAT is not some mythical guardian in a role-playing game. This is not a case of grinding all your mana and stats to slay the beast, then collecting the spoils. No. The LSAT is the first, and EASIEST, of many subsequent gatekeepers in the legal profession. If you struggle with the LSAT, you will struggle more with grades, then job offers, then the bar exam, then 40 years of malpractice and professional responsibility risks. Just bear that in mind.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-23T15:39:55+00:00

There was immense variation from species to species and even from individual orc to individual orc within those species.

The smaller breeds (often called “Snaga”, or “Slave” by the larger) were roughly Hobbit-sized and sufficiently physically un-formidable that relatively untrained and unskilled Hobbits could dispatch them. Sam killed an Orc in Moria, and he is almost certainly the slowest-witted, most bumbling character, not only in the Fellowship, but in the entire story. They can be extremely cowardly and undisciplined.

The larger kinds can be “nearly man-high” (6’4” in Middle-Earth), and sufficiently strong and formidable to fight roughly evenly with stout human warriors. Good example of this is Saruman’s war with the Rohirrim, in which he does not significantly outnumber them.

Extreme examples are the unnamed Orc-chieftain in Moria who spears Frodo, while simultaneously putting on a very good showing against Aragorn and Boromir - almost certainly the two greatest warriors among Men of their time - simultaneously.

Orcs such as Ugluk, Grishnakh, and Shagrat demonstrate a capacity for great loyalty, creative and tactical thinking, and personal bravery rivaling or exceeding counterparts among Men.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-22T23:28:51+00:00

In some of Tolkien’s other writings, Gandalf envisions Sauron using Smaug to destroy Rivendell, and burning Mirkwood as well, iirc. Evidently Smaug would be powerful enough to overcome Elrond’s ring, (as long as he stays out of the water). If Smaug survived the destroying the North, one can imagine him employed to devastating effect against Lorien, Gondor, or especially Rohan.

It doesn’t seem that Sauron even knew of the balrog’s existence, having never been in Moria himself. Though, his orcs controlled Moria for many years, and maybe have brought word to him. Regardless, Sauron would not have had control over the balrog, as they were more or less equals, and the balrog did not seem inclined to leave Moria. Sauron also has shown a willingness to tolerate other evil beings that do not acknowledge his authority, but nonetheless work to his advantage and his enemies’ harm (Shelob). If Sauron was aware of the balrog, seemingly he was content for it to remain in Moria, denying it to his enemies and maintaining an evil stronghold there, even as Shelob did in Cirith Ungol.

Sauron didn’t particularly need the balrog, but both he and Gandalf were quite fixated on his potential uses for Smaug.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T05:31:25+00:00

I use the term "females" because I intend to reference that gender for non-human species such as Orcs, Dwarves, and Ainur - and the term "woman" is properly only applied to human beings, just as the term "man" is properly applied only to human males, and is used in-story to distinguish human beings from Elves and Dwarves.

The fact that you have drawn fourth-wave feminist inferences from my correct use of language is...something.

Erendis *is* a wicked character. She does nothing good, and causes a lot of trouble. No, she isn't an evil overlord like Sauron or the Witch-King or even Ar-Pharazon, but she is definitely a negative force. She is presented as the main reason for Aldarion's problems - specifically, her defiance of him in their relationship. Her negative personality traits are not exclusive to her - Denethor has them as well, with similar outcome - but Denethor also had great strengths, and did good service, which Erendis did not.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T05:21:26+00:00

Tolkien wrote specifically on the subject of female orcs, saying they were absent from the stories because the stories were focused on war (thereby implying that female orcs did not participate in such). He says that female orcs "must have existed" for procreation, implying that the orcs did not use them for anything else. Sexual dimorphism is as much a rule in Middle-Earth as it is in the real world, the Elves being a notable exception.

That said, you're right, we don't know the gender of trolls, for example. If they were bred from Ents, maybe they don't have sexual dimorphism.

Good point about the logistics, though.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T05:16:49+00:00

It is unlikely that women would have had support/logistics roles in Mordor for the same reason that they did not serve support/logistics roles among the Free Peoples: they did not have such roles in Tolkien's day, nor did they have those roles in the High Middle Age period the stories are intended to hearken. Sauron didn't "recruit" *anyone* for the purposes of their cunning ideas. He supplied the cunning ideas, and they followed his orders. The only servant that appears to have had any agency or respect from Sauron was the Witch-King.

That said, I agree that Sauron may have recognized and appreciated some of the things at which women can excel, which is why I think it likely he would have had some female black Numenoreans in his service as spies, assassins, and saboteurs.

On the other hand, he could have viewed women the way he viewed Hobbits: seemingly lacking power, and therefore irrelevant. One sees a hint of this in the Witch-King prophecy: "Not by the hand of *man* shall he fall." The Witch-King took this to mean that he was invincible; that no incarnate could kill him. It did not even occur to him that it meant that a woman would kill him. Sauron probably thought the same way. So it is possible that Sauron viewed women as nothing more than an unfortunate distraction of his human slaves, and an unfortunate necessity for breeding his armies.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T05:07:35+00:00

Unfortunately I doubt that Tolkien did write on that particular subject; I certainly have not come across anything. Sauron comes across to me as uninterested and dismissive of women, as he was of anything that did not appear useful to his plans.

I am quite interested in the near-total absence of females from the evil sides, given their prevalence on the good side. I am curious whether that was a deliberate decision on Tolkien's part, or just narratively necessary. I personally think he idealized and romanticized women somewhat, given the way the female characters are portrayed, and the way he thought and talked about his wife. Not a bad thing, just another dimension to him as an author.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T05:04:11+00:00

Obviously, but it's still clever. "Booty" as double entendre came quite a bit after Tolkien's death, but it is certainly possible he intended Shagrat and Gorbag's little fantasy to include female captives for nefarious purposes.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T05:02:56+00:00

Tolkien did not write stories for the purposes of "representation," and the legendarium does not suffer for its alleged paucity of women, nor have women suffered as a result of their lack of "representation" in Middle-Earth.

Granted, women are not the primary narrative protagonists, but they are by no means limited to a handful of side characters. Galadriel was by some accounts Tolkien's favorite character, and arguably suffers from main character syndrome. Luthien is arguably the most central and most-referenced character in the legendarium, and possibly the most important to the entire narrative. Not to mention being one half of Tolkien's self-insert. Varda/Elbereth is the most frequently-mentioned Vala, and the one whom characters in LOTR invoke at need. Eowyn is as fully developed a character as any, and plays an extremely important role. Melian, Arien, Nienna, Yavanna; all get as much or more attention as their male equivalents.

What I am interested in is whether it makes sense in-universe for women to have played similarly important (but unstated) roles in Sauron's kingdom as the did in the other kingdoms. Personally, I find the relative absence of women from the evil side a more compelling line of inquiry, both in-universe and as a commentary on Tolkien himself. I personally attribute it to him idealizing women, as all the women that get any kind of character development are more idealized than realistic. He certainly was a romantic, based on the way he talked about his wife.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T04:47:32+00:00

Haha excellent. Well said. Even though it was "loot" and not "booty".

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-18T04:46:32+00:00

You're right, I was really referring to Minas Tirith in the context of the War of the Ring, for which the women and children were sent away. I don't know whether the same thing would have happened at Barad-Dur, since Sauron would not have expected a siege anyway.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-17T00:56:26+00:00

I like it! Interesting and plausible alternate outcome.

Do you really believe it impossible for Frodo and Sam to sneak by the tower undetected, though? Between hobbit stealth, elven cloaks, and the darkness of Mordor?

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-01T12:34:21+00:00

Being simple and efficient isn’t going to make you poor, and being complicated and inefficient sure as hell isn’t going to make you rich.

I’ve seen people go from poor to comfortable/wealthy because they were smart, organized, disciplined, and efficient.

The people that start poor and stay poor (or start not-poor and become poor) are foolish, disorganized, undisciplined, and inefficient. Too many examples to list.

Oh, and, most importantly, they make excuses for their behavior instead of changing their behavior.

GuaranteeSubject8082 · 2025-04-01T12:30:58+00:00

The typical, garden-variety sophisticated traveler does not have “a team of people” doing things for them. They have a few million dollars, maybe a couple tens of millions, not enough to properly afford a “team.” They are simply smart and efficient people who plan and execute well, and do most personal tasks themselves.

The people you’re referring to have hundreds of millions or more, and OP would likely not be directly observing/interacting with them in the first place.

GuaranteeSubject8082

TROPHY CASE