Please explain to me which point of yours I didn't address, you've only addressed one of mine in all of your responses, my assertion that you will make BigLaw despite what the statistics say, but failed to address anything else of what I have said. I said, your chances of BigLaw are low, the statistics on BigLaw placement bore this out. To this you responded, but look at my LSAT score, that proves I'm a winner, to which I responded, the LSAT is not dispositive. You have not refuted this assertion, do you believe the LSAT score is dispositive? You have also failed to explained why you want BigLaw, besides the money(or is it just about the money?), or even stated that you know what practicing law even is(hint: it is not what you see on Law and Order or Boston Legal, especially not for those who don't work at white shoe firms). You followed that up with some bullshit about how people on the internet are unhappy, so of course you find unhappy people on the internet, but that's not a substantive response because nothing that I've said has anything to do with my own happiness, a point that you seem to fail to grasp. All of my points are about the reality of law and the legal profession based on, again, statistics and surveys, but go on thinking that its just because law school didn't work out for me(here's a hint, law school did work out for me, and I still see all the arguments and think its basically always a terrible idea) or that you're, as you've probably been told your entire life in the rich Chicago suburbs(I'm gonna go with Northbrook, but Glenview works too) that you're a unique and beautiful snowflake who would make an amazing attorney.
And all of this leads you to believe that I'm the one who didn't address your points? As I said at the top of my post before, I went line by line and addressed each of your points in turn. I mean, come on, for someone who got such a high score on their LSAT, I'd expect to see some quality counterarguments to both my original points and my line by line response. Instead I get the equivalent of "Zomg, look at my LSAT score" and "Your argument is nothing I haven't heard before" The first of which isn't really a great response to my, "explain how your GPA does not explain away some sort of lack of ability or drive or how you're going to suddenly develop this awesome work ethic now that it "counts"". And the second of which isn't even a response to an argument, its a complete dismissal that I've never said anything, which just goes to prove that you can't change the mind of lemmings about jumping off the cliff.
Beyond that you respond with this, which indites your position more than anything I could say, and its straight from your own mouth:
You know who likes working hard, BigLaw associates. The ones that make it anyway. Again, why do you think the burn out rate is so high? Because, you are right, most people don't enjoy working hard. And furthermore, if you don't enjoy working hard, what makes you think that you won't just regress to your old undergraduate habits at the first sign of hard work in law school(and make no mistake even the smartest person in the world has to work hard to succeed at law school)? This is a point you never address except to say, "I can work hard when I want to". So you just didn't give a shit in undergrad? Again, this continues to sound more and more like law school by default.
The point ultimate is this, BigLaw associates both hate their job and have to work at it so hard that it can't just be a means to an end, between sleeping and bodily functions working 80 hours a week basically means that you are actually physically hurting yourself or you have no time to make work anything but your life. There is no means to an end with BigLaw because BigLaw is both your means and your end. But continue to think that working 80/hr week gives you time to do what you really love, that is to say if you make it as one of the 20% who make BigLaw.