ESSAY: Law School

So, this is a little personal, but I wanted to have this on the web for my future viewing and posterity.

I am trying to get into law school. I have attended several colleges and up until last year, I fucked up my education really badly. I was given opportunities that I was too young and too arrogant to appreciate and now, I really regret the person I was and how I stupid I was for not taking advantage of them in the first place.

It's trite, but those mistakes brought me to where I am today and as painful as it is to look back on them, they were an unfortunate necessity to make my current quest have any meaning. I wish I could be one of those people who were driven by an unseen, constant force. I wish I could just be one of those people who work hard without need of constant validation for themselves as people or for the goals they're seeking. Anyway, I'm not one of those people. I do need constant validation.

I think if I make my quest to get into law school public, it might help motivate me to avoid the public embarrassment of going back against it.

Why the hell would I torture myself with law school?

So, some of you might ask, why law school?

Mort importantly, What do you want to do?

The answer is, I'm not exactly sure but I'd most like to be in public policy, and law school helps with that. Law school, as far as I can tell doesn't close any doors. If I want to be a professor, a law degree helps that. If I want to get involved in the background of politics (I do NOT want to be an actual politician), it helps with that. If I decide I want to get involved in the corporate world, it helps that. Maybe, while I'm in law school, I may decide that I actually do want to become a lawyer. Right now, though, I'm not so sure.

Let's just say it this way: for some time, I've loved the idea of becoming a history or civics professors and I can't imagine being laughed at when I apply for a job as a history teacher with a law degree. On the flip side, if I study history and try to apply for a job as a lawyer, the same could not be said. They'd definitely laugh at me.

Law school only opens doors. Yes, I know its hard. Yes I know its unbelievably expensive especially if I'm not sure that I ultimately even want to become a lawyer. Whatever. It's a good investment in the long run no matter what path I follow career-wise.

There are other factors why I want to as well:

1) Going back to school has been an enormous boon to my self-esteem. The last 18 months in school have been the only time in my adult life where I can see with absolute certainty I have been a success. I have grown to love, if not going to school itself, then the feeling of knowing what is expected of me, with constant evaluation to show if I'm doing a good job.

2) I have been a near constant disappointment to my family and I want them to be proud of me. They will be proud of me if I go to law school

3) It seems hard and I like the challenge of it but unlike the challenge of say, my band, it's an inherently winnable one. If I try my best, I WILL succeed at law school. Trying my best at my band provides no such certainties. That's not to say I don't like the challenge of my band, but it will certainly be nice to take on something that as not open-ended and near impossible to quantify victory.

4) The period of my life after I was thrown out of Loyola was the first time in my life where I felt I had no options. Until I went back to school and allowed myself to start dreaming for bigger things again, I didn't realize how downtrodden I'd become: looking forward to a life of drudgery where I don't have enough money and I can never make up for my past mistakes. Having possibilities again has given me new optimism. Suddenly I'm that same kid I was in high school: not perfect but not a total fuck up anymore, either.

I have accrued 42 credits over the past 18 months (nearly as many as whole time at Loyola) at a 4.0 GPA. For the first time in 8 years, my name has value again, I can use it to attain a better life. Anything that opens up new doors is good for my well-being, and law school opens more doors than anything I can imagine.

5) Most importantly, I owe Cole my very best attempt at a great life for her. I can't think of anything that would allow for that more than law school. If nothing else, I will go to law school because I love my fiancée.

Grades - the sad truth about my past.

"Alright, great Matt, then go to law school!"

Yeah, I wish it were that simple. I'm still not positive I can.

So here's the thing: I have 57 credits from Loyola University (nee Loyola College in MD)

From there: I have a 1.9 GPA.

Yikes, right? Yeah, I really screwed up.

Anyway, I returned to school in 2009 at Suffolk: I took 18 credits there for a 4.0 GPA.

I have since taken 24 more credits at NYIT, again for a 4.0.

"Great, Matt!" I can hear you all saying. "Surely the admissions officers will see you've done so much better since returning to school and forgive your horrid 1.9 from Loyola!"

You think so? Yeah, a lot of people have told me that same thing, and while I hope it's true, I am not planning on it. So I'm just assuming that the schools will calculate my cumulative GPA amongst all schools right now and just say that's my GPA.

So what does that mean? It means, basically, I've got a big, big hole to climb out of.

Even with 42 credits of 4.0 schooling, I've still only got about a 2.8 cumulative GPA. Applying to law school with a 2.8 will not be a fun experience, but luckily, I've got about 36 more credits to go. Assuming I get a 4.0 I will have somewhere between a 3.1 and a 3.2 when I apply to law school, which is about a B/B+ average and while that's not nearly as bad as a 1.9, it's also not very good for my law school prospects, overall.

The LSATs - my only possible saving grace

The LSATS are like the SATs for law school. They test logical reasoning, analytical ability and reading comprehension. They're scored on roughly a bell-curve, scaled from 120 - 180, with about 152 being average.

According to these slightly outdated numbers mathematically oriented majors like Physics and Economics tend to the best with a 160 average score while Criminology and Pre-law majors, ironically, tend to do the worst with a below-average 145. For what its worth, Political Science students, of which I am one, score almost exactly average with a 151.8.

In my estimation, to have any shot at getting into law school given my poor performance record, I have to get at least a 160, which would put me in the 81st percentile. And even then, I'm relying on some measure of charity from the university to which I am applying.

If I am able to get a 165 (92nd percentile), things start to get more interesting. I have to get, on average, 7 more questions right of the 101 question test if I'm to get a 165 vs. a 160.

If I get a 170 (97.5th percentile), that would mean getting 7 MORE questions right, I have some small shot at getting into some of the best schools in the country.

If by some miracle I get a 175, which would put me in the 99th percentile and I have way, WAY more options.

Don't think that much can hinge on 7-14 questions on one test? Unfortunately, (and at the same time I guess, fortunately) it does.

This website and this one aggregate admissions data from law schools and estimate your probability of getting into them based on your cumulative GPA and your LSAT scores. There is no way to measure things like your essay or interview with admissions the only other modifier is whether you are an under-represented minority (as a white, male, middle class, heterosexual New York State resident I am literally the walking, breathing embodiment of the anti-under-represented-minority)

But I digress, 3.12 GPA is just about the best I can realistically hope for without any weight being given to my later work by admissions officials given my vastly improved performance.

According to US News and World Reports rankings, the top 10 law schools in this country are:

Yale

Harvard

Stanford

Columbia

University of Chicago

New York University

UC - Berkley and the University of Pennsylvania tied for 7th

University of Michigan

University of Virginia

For those of you kids counting at home, that's 4 Ivy League schools and some of the best public schools in the history of mankind with dozens of the best known professors and alumni including hundreds of famous politicians, litigators as well as many noble laureates to their collective credit.

In other words, I won't be getting into them under any circumstance, so we'll exclude them.

Law school and LSATs, what I need to do

So, to start with, here is the bleak picture I'm faced with of the number 10 - 30 law schools if I get a 160 on my LSATs:

Yeah, so... not ideal. And just so you can see how high the stakes are here. This is the lower quintile of the US News and World Report's top 100 list:

I am not much better than a 30% shot at any school if I get a 160 on my LSATs. However, I think I can do better than that. And if I do, all of sudden the world of my future at law school looks brighter.

Here's what it looks like if I get a 165, or 7 questions better:

But look at how much better I do with those schools a little lower on the list. Remember this is just 5 points better:

Look at all that green! Damn son, I might even get some money. See, this is where I start to feel really good because the first 3 practice tests I've taken I scored a 164, 166 and a 166. So basically, unless I really let my nerves take over it looks like I've got a realistic shot at schools like Syracuse, DePaul, NorthEastern, UNLV and the one most exciting to me in that group, Oregon! Hell yeah, son, I would be a duck! Anyway, I would be ecstatic to go to any of these schools.

So basically, now comes the challenging part. My REAL goal, is to get higher than a 175 on the LSATs and I will study everyday to make that a reality. LSAT scores follow you for 5 years and when they transmit your score to schools, they transmit ALL your scores. So I have to make the first time count.

Anyway, just for a "dream a little dream" moment here, this is what happens if I get a 170 with those top 30 schools:

All of sudden, I'm not an outright rejection almost anywhere. Mort importantly, I'm getting strong consideration at places I would LOVE to go to: Indiana, Wisconsin, Davis? These are places I would LOVE to live

The last level I dare to look at, is if a miracle happens, and I get a 175:

There's a couple real dreams schools in here: first is UNC which is near my Uncle Pat and just somewhere I've had in my head for some time that I'd like to go.

The second is the University of Illinois near my sister Jessica. Third is Notre Dame, which all Catholic school kids would love to go to.

But last, and the one that almost makes me get a little emotional is that little "admit" next to Cornell. A lot of you don't know that when I was in high school, I always talked about going to college (not unlike they way I'm doing now) and nothing ever topped, in terms of emotion and anticipation for me the weekend I went with my dad to visit Cornell. I knew getting into an Ivy League school would have made my parents happier than anything and I really wanted it too.

Cornell was something I dreamed about and talked about for years and when the time came and I was rejected, I wasn't surprised but I felt like I had given up my family's first great hope at greatness for me.

Anyway, I'm trumping it up, but the opportunity to even once again dream of the possibilty of going to a school like Cornell has got me very, very excited.

So, anyway, that's that. Get 175 and make myself into a new man. It's just that simply. Now, all I have to do is execute it.

Get on my ass, tell me to study. I'm trying to go 45-an hour every night. Hopefully I can get there.

Wish me luck and thank you so much for reading this. I know it's not interesting to anyone but me and if you've read this far, that must mean you really care about me.

MUSIC: What does Joe Jackson's "Look Sharp" Know About Alex Chilton?

I remember listening to an old interview of Alex Chilton that aired on the radio shortly after he passed away and more than anything else I was struck by the diffidence and blasé attitude he seemed to have about his own place in the history of pop:

“I guess in the late '70s. I spent some time in New York, and it seemed like everybody I ran into there, you know, claimed to be a fan of the Big Star albums, and that sort of stuff. And so, you know, I guess it was around then that I began to see that even though we hadn't sold any records or made any money out of the albums, that they were still some kind of success in a way, you know.”

It wasn’t quite stunning but I’d always heard Chilton spoken of in the most reverent terms; he was a man who had more credibility with indie pop hipsters than the Pope has with Catholics and he spoke of his own brilliant musical career like a dentist discussing his unsuccessful private practice at a holiday party.

The fact is, when it came down it, he lived a modest middle class life, he played golden oldies at state fairs because the money was good and the sets were short and he died in large part because he put off going to the doctor for days because he didn’t have health insurance. It’s an obvious point but it’s one that isn’t made very often: you can’t pay your damn bills with credibility.

The way the word “pop” was applied with reverence to Chilton long after the last Big Star record was released, “pop” has been used as a baton to beat Joe Jackson repeatedly about the head. To wit, you won’t find many descriptions of Jackson’s early work that doesn’t use the word in the first couple sentences and its used with some measure of distaste.

For both men, though, pop music seemed to be more a means to an end – just what you did because that’s how you made music. Jackson says in his own autobiography: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around does it make a sound? Or: Does music even exist, if no one's listening?” Both Jackson and Chilton seem to have a workmanlike attitude toward their own music. Sure, follow your muse, make music you can be proud of, but why even bother if no one’s going to listen? Making pop music wasn’t a conscious choice any more than it was a conscious choice to make music at all. It’s just what you do.

For his part, the line on Joe Jackson in the early days was that he married an acerbic wit with a decidedly pop aesthetic. He was too poppy for the punk-rock kids but too smart for the room; that’s the reputation anyway but I think that misses the mark pretty substantially on both accounts.

Take as a case study Jackson’s debut Look Sharp! Which has a great share of both pop craftsmanship as evidenced by the smash hit “Is She Really Going Out with Him?” and sharp wit with lines like “If you want to know about the gay politician / if you want to know how to drive a car / If you want to know about the new sex position” from the trade winds groove of “Sunday Papers.”

But the reason I say any focus on the pop aspects of or the clever wit of Look Sharp! Misses the point is because, this is an angry and if you can pardon the buzzword, edgy album and more to the point, it possesses the unsubtle obtuseness one would expect from an angry record. More often than not Look Sharp! Is not particularly incisive, nor is particularly polished.

Take for example, the little bit of rock n’ roll perfection that opens Look Sharp, “One More Time:”

“One More Time” is angular and open and incredibly fresh sounding even 30 years after the fact. It’s not that Jackson isn’t working within the pop milieu, it’s that the label is being applied in a more specific and pejorative sense. Sure, there’s a verse-chorus structure but is it really that much easier to swallow than “Radio, Radio” or “Kick Out the Jams?”

In a backwards way, I think critics like to reference Jackson’s wit almost as a way of punishing him. Eventually, he followed his muse out of rock into low-middlebrow forays into the worlds of jazz trios and classical. In the end, he was a quick-hipped dilettante with one eye toward the door and the scions of rock and new wave hated him for it. In other words, we were almost threatened by Jackson and it was easier to just toss a pithy reference to his wit or intelligence and dismiss him. He wants to leave? Fine, fuck him. Mr. Big Shot.

But again, I think this misses the point and in a strange way gives him too much credit. Take “Fools in Love” which I can only guess was received as a little too clever for the charts when it was released as a single with its mellow ska upstrokes set against an evisceration of modern love. I mean, I guess but there simply isn’t the poetry to back it up:

“Fools in love they think they’re heroes / ’cause they get to feel no pain / I say fools in love are zeros / I should know, I should know / Because this fool’s in love again.” Nothing about rhyming “zeroes” with “heroes” strikes me as interesting poetry.

The fact of the matter is the “clever diatribe” is a difficult thing to pull off without sounding affected (just ask Dennis Miller). Either Jackson was a painfully obvious lyricist with little sense of nuance, or he was, as we all were, angry in his early years and struggled, as we all did, to convey that anger in a logically cogent way.

Labels are a tricky thing, and the stickiness of “pop” when it comes to Joe Jackson is a sort of interesting exemplar of the arbitrariness behind how we raise up some men and sort of relegate others to certain purgatories. In a way, Jackson was always treated as a sort of craftsman first, as if we were being sold a bill of goods by a cynic. I don’t hear much evidence that there is any less sincere emotion to Look Sharp! than any of his peers and more importantly, Look Sharp! from a qualitative perspective stands up nicely against This Year’s Model as an artifact of the time.

Rolling Stone wrote of Jackson:

Ironically, the borderline-nasty wit and unchecked exuberance of these albums quickly gave way to self-seriousness and a middle-brow disdain of rock itself. Jackson turned into a bigger crank than his two old rivals parker and Costello put together - and that's saying a lot! The remainder of his in-print catalogue is marked by restless wandering from one musical genre to another. Sometimes the experiments works brilliantly; more often, they simply bewilder

I think the phrase “turned into” a crank is exactly the dismissal that drives me nuts. He didn’t “turn into” a crank, he started that way and while we were willing to follow Costello into whatever genre experiments he decided to cook up or alternatively, laud Alex Chilton for his steadfast worship of the pop gods, we didn’t give Joe Jackson the same room to operate. He was too pissy to satisfy our desire for pop music in easy to eat, bite-sized morsels and he didn’t condescend to us so we felt little danger of looking stupid if we ignored him.

You have to wonder if Jackson would trade his career for Chilton’s credibility. Or maybe, more importantly for us, the consumers of music, the critics and the scholars, what it says about us that we would give with one hand while slapping away with the other two different men, who followed the same exact impulse: to make music people would like, because that’s what you do. And since the reward for a lifetime of our admiration is dying too young because you can’t pay your bills, you have to wonder if anyone should really care what we think anyway.