Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: RootBrewskies on February 27, 2006, 11:36:35 PM

Title: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on February 27, 2006, 11:36:35 PM
So ive been reviewing these threads and seeing people posting gpa's and talking about their schools curve.  the question i have is, does it matter what the curve at your school is for reasons other than keeping your gpa above a certain point for scholarships or other reason?  really i only ask this because since ever school seems to use a differnt curve does gpa really matter?  obviously students at schools that grade with a 3.2-3.3 curve have a distinct advantage of having a better GPA than students at schools with a 2.7-2.8 curve.  so essentially someone with a 2.7 and a 3.3 could have performed equally well but have significantly different grades.  Judging from this you would think class rank would be the only thing that really mattered but it seems like GPA plays an important role in getting jobs.  it doesnt make much sense to me.  maybe im wrong in my reasoning and understanding.  if you could clear it up i'd appreciate it. 
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: lincolnsgrandson on February 28, 2006, 04:49:47 AM
class rank is more important than the numerical GPA.  Does that answer your question?
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tacojohn on February 28, 2006, 06:57:16 AM
Almost all scholarships are based on class rank or percentiles.  So you need to stay in, say, the top 25% for a scholarship, or the top half of the class.  Same with grading onto law review, which is typically something like the top 10% or 5%.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on February 28, 2006, 03:23:47 PM
i was just saying, why do they even curve at all?  and why do they give out gpa's?  essentially with curves in place it makes gpa's pointless.  shouldnt schools grade simply by giving out class rank for your overall ranking and then they could rank you for each individual class or something like that. 

but it doesnt make much sense that at alot of schools you must recieve a 3.0 or 3.2 in order to maintain a scholarship. 
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on February 28, 2006, 03:30:00 PM
Some schools don't rank below the top 10 or 25%
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: lincolnsgrandson on February 28, 2006, 03:40:27 PM
True - many schools don't give actually class ranks, but approximate bench marks.  For instance, Fordham Law provides the benchmark for the "approximate" 5,10,15,25,33 and 50 percent.  And that's it.
So the GPA itself important.
The resume must be written like this:
GPA = 3.43 (approximate 25% = 3.44)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: majorporcupine on February 28, 2006, 03:56:09 PM
Yeah, this is one of those cases where the more info you give, the better you can estimate your chances.  GPA/class rank is more useful than either alone, just like with LSAT/UGPA for law school admissions.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on February 28, 2006, 09:48:31 PM
it still doesnt sound like anyone really agrees with me when saying that gpa's are pointless when schools have a curve and rank their students. 
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on February 28, 2006, 10:06:52 PM
by your logic GPAs were pointless in undergrad too. every school has a curve, whether its intentional or not. some school's grades are inflated. some are very tough.

that fact that this is a new revelation leads me to believe ignorantly blissful in your ugpa. maybe now you can look back on it and realize how worthless it was. i bet you were a hi gpa / low lsat splitter who bitched and moaned about not getting recongiiton for your 'effort'. welcome to life.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tacojohn on March 01, 2006, 05:39:54 AM
GPAs aren't pointless.  Let's say you have a 3.6, good for top 15% at your school with the 3.0 curve.  You're competiting for a job with someone from an equally ranked school in the same city, who's 3.3 is top 10% at their school with a 2.7 curve.  You think that your 3.6 isn't going to make an impression despite the fact that the other person actually did better?  This is a far-fetched example, but I'm just trying to make a point.  At some level, the raw GPA will make an impact.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on March 01, 2006, 09:12:53 AM
In the situation you described I would rather have the 3.3. And my resume would either read "GPA 3.3/4.0 (Top 10%)" or simply read "Top 10% of Class".
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 01, 2006, 05:31:25 PM
i just feel like the gpa is a poor indicator of how people do in law school since virtually every school ranks their students, and becauase of that law schools should use a higher curve in order to help their students get better jobs.  i understand that they are kind of an indicator of how well you did, but they are a poor indicator in comparison to class rank. 

put yourself in the employers shoes....would u rather have someone who had a 3.4 and was top 25% of the class, or would u rather have someone with a 3.0 who was in the top 10%.  obviously the top 10% is better but the gpa doesnt indicate that.    i think most employers would select the top 10% student regardless of the fact that he/she has a lower GPA.  so this really indicates that curves dont make sense, because the student with the lower gpa is more valueable to the employer. 

does this make sense to anyone else?

Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: majorporcupine on March 01, 2006, 07:57:49 PM
You also have to take into account the school reputation.  Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: marlene on March 01, 2006, 08:20:54 PM
You also have to take into account the school reputation. Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

You meant, "Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a lower GPA," didn't you?!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 01, 2006, 08:29:26 PM
i just feel like the gpa is a poor indicator of how people do in law school since virtually every school ranks their students, and becauase of that law schools should use a higher curve in order to help their students get better jobs.  i understand that they are kind of an indicator of how well you did, but they are a poor indicator in comparison to class rank. 

put yourself in the employers shoes....would u rather have someone who had a 3.4 and was top 25% of the class, or would u rather have someone with a 3.0 who was in the top 10%.  obviously the top 10% is better but the gpa doesnt indicate that.    i think most employers would select the top 10% student regardless of the fact that he/she has a lower GPA.  so this really indicates that curves dont make sense, because the student with the lower gpa is more valueable to the employer. 

does this make sense to anyone else?



RootBrewskies -

If I'm an employer in the situation you mentioned, I don't necessarily go with the higher class rank.  A large component of my decision will be the school where the class rank is earned from.  Top 25% is extremely impressive at Harvard, not so much so at Cooley.

Also, better schools usually have a higher mean GPA.  Thus, while class rank may be a superior way to compare students from the same schools, GPA may be a superior way to compare students from different schools.  You could argue that this is because being a Top 5% student at your favorite tier 3 school is equivalent to being at the median at Harvard.  Thus, a 3.4 may make you top 5% at some schools, but only top 50% at Harvard - yet the two 3.4s are representative of equivalent students, and so you could argue the GPA to be a better indicator than the class rank.

However, even if schools don't follow this model (better schools = higher mean GPA), GPA is good for is showing the precise difference between class ranks.  For example, the #1 student may be miles above the #2 student, and the #3 student may be just behind the #2 student.  If you just had class rank, you'd think these students were seperated by similar margins, when this may not be the case.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 01, 2006, 08:30:09 PM
You also have to take into account the school reputation. Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

You meant, "Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a lower GPA," didn't you?!

No, it makes more sense the way he said it, even though we all know that the Harvard grading scale is higher than the Cooley one.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: kjbj on March 02, 2006, 02:23:39 AM
tj, honey, it either makes sense the way he said it, or it doesn't. The fact is that it doesn't. Sorry!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on March 02, 2006, 02:25:21 AM
Code: [Select]
eat *&^% and die.

you could probably score a 2.7 and a 'top' 75% at harvard and do better than cooley. point made.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: getreal on March 02, 2006, 02:34:32 AM
tj, honey, it either makes sense the way he said it, or it doesn't. The fact is that it doesn't. Sorry!

;)

You also have to take into account the school reputation. Top 20% at Harvard is a world away from top 20% at Thomas Cooley, even if the Cooley grad had a higher GPA.

And, sooorry, this is simply not true! If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: bulletproof on March 02, 2006, 02:54:10 AM
does this make sense to anyone else?

It makes sense in that I see exactly what you mean, but the GPA can serve a purpose.  I think there are quite a few schools that rank only a certain percentage of students (it's the top 20% at mine) and so the GPA is helpful in that situation to give both the student and the employer an idea where they were at in the field.  But, if every single student is ranked then I'd say the GPA is either unimportant or at least much less important.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 07:47:08 AM
tj, honey, it either makes sense the way he said it, or it doesn't. The fact is that it doesn't. Sorry!

Actually it makes sense.  I'm sorry you didn't get it.

"Top 20% at Harvard is worlds better than Top 20% at Cooley." - This should be an undisputed fact.  The best and brightest minds, when applying to law school, apply to Harvard and not to Cooley.  This means that someone who succeeds at Harvard - which, given the law school curve, means that they have bested their peers - has achieved a greater accomplishment than he who succeeds at Cooley.

"Even if the Cooley grad has a higher GPA" - Given each school's different grading scale, it is possible that two people have different GPAs for the same class rank at different schools.  If the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy, you might think the Cooley Grad was better than the Harvard grad.  Of course, you'd be an idiot, but you might think it.

If it still doesn't make sense, I think you were just not meant to get it.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 07:52:46 AM
And, sooorry, this is simply not true! If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!

I find it funny that this is coming from a person named "Get Real"

Your statement is false for three reasons:

1)  When people transfer to a new school, their first year grades are typically marked as non-graded passes.  Thus, the transfer is starting out from scratch and has no class rank at his new school.

2)  Even if he did get to keep his grades, Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley, so the 3.4 that earned him his Top 10% or whatever, would only be on the median at Harvard.

3)  Most importantly, as I stated in my last post, succeeding at Harvard is miles away from succeeding at Cooley.  Harvard sends people to the Supreme Court.  Cooley sends people to the Eastern District of Michigan.  Besting your peers at Harvard means you could best your peers anywhere.  Besting your peers at Cooley means you've bested your peers at Cooley.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on March 02, 2006, 07:55:03 AM
If it still doesn't make sense, I think you were just not meant to get it.
I think we're talking to a cooley-quality kid here.
If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!
If one of the tallest 20% of midgets transferred to the globetrotters he'd rank among the tallest 20% of globetrotters. ???


dumbass
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 02, 2006, 09:28:47 AM
i think everyone is pushing it a little far with the cooley vs. harvard comparison.  obviously the two schools are worlds apart, and while the top students at cooley may be there for certain reasons we dont know, its an unrealistic comparison with perhaps 1 or two students who may be exceptional at cooley. 

obviously students at the top 20 or so schools have an advantage and can pull off a lower gpa and class rank and still be seen as being a top student simply from the schools reputation.  beyond this mark though, most schools go from being national to be regional schools, and it may be a stretch to say that the top 20 schools are national.  but after this students begin to be compared against one another with factors other than their school, mostly class rank, gpa, and random soft factors. 

so while the harvard vs. cooley argument is a little far fetched, much more often you would see employers looking at resumes from people from Pitt vs. Duquesne, or Temple vs. Villanova vs. Widener, or Syracuse vs. Pace, or something like this. 

odds are the person doing the hirering will be fairly impartial unless he/she went to one of the schools.  he/she will be impartial cause odds are there are people in the firm who went to one of the regional schools (look at the list of law firm partners and associates, its filled with people from regional schools).  anyway, this would mean that students would once again be judged against each other and without a doubt GPA would be evaluated and depending on the curve, one schools grad's would have a distinct advantage. 

i think that there really is no need for curves because class rank is sufficient and GPA's have too many holes in them.  obviously in the cooley vs. harvard example odds are a person graduating last in harvards class has a better shot than someone in a top percentile at cooley but that comparison is just too far fetched to consider.  but a comparison on someone from regional schools that are essentially equal in class rank but have different GPA's gives the schools grads with the softer curver an advantage when getting jobs. 

Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 10:15:23 AM
i think everyone is pushing it a little far with the cooley vs. harvard comparison.  obviously the two schools are worlds apart, and while the top students at cooley may be there for certain reasons we dont know, its an unrealistic comparison with perhaps 1 or two students who may be exceptional at cooley. 

obviously students at the top 20 or so schools have an advantage and can pull off a lower gpa and class rank and still be seen as being a top student simply from the schools reputation.  beyond this mark though, most schools go from being national to be regional schools, and it may be a stretch to say that the top 20 schools are national.  but after this students begin to be compared against one another with factors other than their school, mostly class rank, gpa, and random soft factors. 

so while the harvard vs. cooley argument is a little far fetched, much more often you would see employers looking at resumes from people from Pitt vs. Duquesne, or Temple vs. Villanova vs. Widener, or Syracuse vs. Pace, or something like this. 

odds are the person doing the hirering will be fairly impartial unless he/she went to one of the schools.  he/she will be impartial cause odds are there are people in the firm who went to one of the regional schools (look at the list of law firm partners and associates, its filled with people from regional schools).  anyway, this would mean that students would once again be judged against each other and without a doubt GPA would be evaluated and depending on the curve, one schools grad's would have a distinct advantage. 

i think that there really is no need for curves because class rank is sufficient and GPA's have too many holes in them.  obviously in the cooley vs. harvard example odds are a person graduating last in harvards class has a better shot than someone in a top percentile at cooley but that comparison is just too far fetched to consider.  but a comparison on someone from regional schools that are essentially equal in class rank but have different GPA's gives the schools grads with the softer curver an advantage when getting jobs. 



I hear your argument, but more than abolishing GPA entirely, you seem to be arguing for a mandatory GPA median range for all ABA law schools.  If every school had a 3.0 as their median, then you wouldn't have the soft curve school v. hard curve school issue.  Despite the fact that you'd have to make sure every class hit the median range, and that it would eliminate some component of each law school's autonomy, this might be a workable plan.  You still don't want to abolish GPA, because...how are you to judge the #1 student from each school?  Obviously they're the best at their school, but how far above the median are they?  Only GPA gives that answer.

BTW, did you really mean to say "I think that there is really no need for curves?"  You mean you object to the forced curve grading system of law schools?
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: LostMyMonkeys on March 02, 2006, 10:56:42 AM
tj, honey, it either makes sense the way he said it, or it doesn't. The fact is that it doesn't. Sorry!

Actually it makes sense.  I'm sorry you didn't get it.

"Top 20% at Harvard is worlds better than Top 20% at Cooley." - This should be an undisputed fact.  The best and brightest minds, when applying to law school, apply to Harvard and not to Cooley.  This means that someone who succeeds at Harvard - which, given the law school curve, means that they have bested their peers - has achieved a greater accomplishment than he who succeeds at Cooley.

"Even if the Cooley grad has a higher GPA" - Given each school's different grading scale, it is possible that two people have different GPAs for the same class rank at different schools.  If the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy, you might think the Cooley Grad was better than the Harvard grad.  Of course, you'd be an idiot, but you might think it.

If it still doesn't make sense, I think you were just not meant to get it.

Made perfect sense to me the first time you wrote it. I guess they say.. if you have to explain it.....
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 02, 2006, 12:48:50 PM
i understand the arguement that GPA helps to show the difference between the top students.  like number stands out more if he/she is at 4.0 and number 2 is at 3.8 or 3.7 or something like that.  but in reality the employer wont know that, unless by chance #1 and #2 apply to the same firm, in which case the firm will probably not favor either one of them based simply on ranking but rather on their interview. 

i'm not saying that every ABA school should have a set curve, like 3.0, although that might help the situation.  what i think is that it would a better way to grade students if they were graded like this.

Overall 40/120 rank

Torts   25/120 rank (here they could give an equivalent grade, such as saying "Approximately B+" however this would bear no significance other than an idicator of where u stand)

Contracts  60/120 (approximately C)

something like this.  just give a ranking for where u stand for each class.  it would provide an indicator of where u stand on each subject just like standards grades do, but it would eliminate the need for GPA and there for clear up all the curve differientiations.  granted this wouldnt show how far ahead of 2 you are if your number 1 but either do A,B,and C's.  GPA gives an indication of that, but u never see other peoples grades first of all, and it shouldnt really matter, since u should just try your best regardless of where your ranked or what your GPA is.  If 40th precentile is the best you can do, does it matter what the person at the 30th percentile is?  if your doing everything you can odds are unless they give up you wont be able to catch them. 

i just think that GPA's are too arbitrary depending on the school you attend.  class rank is a better indicator because GPA's can help and hurt students that are completely equal based simply on the school they went to and the curve used at that institution.

Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 02, 2006, 01:01:12 PM
oh and personally i think that if you recieved a ranking in a specific class or overall of 120/120 or 115/120 or something like that, it would be more of a wake up call to, "you better start rethinking what you want as a future career, or whether this school is the right place for you" than a GPA of 2.0 or 1.7 or something would be.


overall i think my reasoning and logic is airtight.  im perfect, as usual.  you may argue but you shall lose. 
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 01:49:20 PM
BTW, did you really mean to say "I think that there is really no need for curves?"  You mean you object to the forced curve grading system of law schools?

Ahem.  ???
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: usnewz on March 02, 2006, 04:47:04 PM


"Even if the Cooley grad has a higher GPA" - Given each school's different grading scale, it is possible that two people have different GPAs for the same class rank at different schools.  If the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy, you might think the Cooley Grad was better than the Harvard grad.  Of course, you'd be an idiot, but you might think it.


paran0id, don't you understand that it is impossible that the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy?! It's the other way around!


             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: usnewz on March 02, 2006, 04:52:20 PM
And, sooorry, this is simply not true! If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!

I find it funny that this is coming from a person named "Get Real"

Your statement is false for three reasons:

1)  When people transfer to a new school, their first year grades are typically marked as non-graded passes.  Thus, the transfer is starting out from scratch and has no class rank at his new school.

2)  Even if he did get to keep his grades, Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley, so the 3.4 that earned him his Top 10% or whatever, would only be on the median at Harvard.

3)  Most importantly, as I stated in my last post, succeeding at Harvard is miles away from succeeding at Cooley.  Harvard sends people to the Supreme Court.  Cooley sends people to the Eastern District of Michigan.  Besting your peers at Harvard means you could best your peers anywhere.  Besting your peers at Cooley means you've bested your peers at Cooley.

As to

1) you're right, it's true.
2) because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him, so that he'll end top 20% at Harvard as well.
3) Succedding at Harvard, baby, is NOT miles away from succedding at Cooley, unless you think from the prespective of my name.

Have a good one, sweetie!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 06:54:05 PM
And, sooorry, this is simply not true! If the top 20% at Cooley transfers to Harvard he'd rank top 20% at Harvard as well. It's that simple!

I find it funny that this is coming from a person named "Get Real"

Your statement is false for three reasons:

1)  When people transfer to a new school, their first year grades are typically marked as non-graded passes.  Thus, the transfer is starting out from scratch and has no class rank at his new school.

2)  Even if he did get to keep his grades, Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley, so the 3.4 that earned him his Top 10% or whatever, would only be on the median at Harvard.

3)  Most importantly, as I stated in my last post, succeeding at Harvard is miles away from succeeding at Cooley.  Harvard sends people to the Supreme Court.  Cooley sends people to the Eastern District of Michigan.  Besting your peers at Harvard means you could best your peers anywhere.  Besting your peers at Cooley means you've bested your peers at Cooley.

As to

1) you're right, it's true.
2) because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him, so that he'll end top 20% at Harvard as well.
3) Succedding at Harvard, baby, is NOT miles away from succedding at Cooley, unless you think from the prespective of my name.

Have a good one, sweetie!


I hit lots of home runs in little league.
I guess I could hit lots of home runs in the Major Leagues!

I am the fastest kid in my high school.
I could win an Gold Medal in the Olympics!

I can beat up retarded kids.
I'm the next Rocky or Muhammed Ali!

I have the biggest appetite in my family.
I could win Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest!

I could go on and on...
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 02, 2006, 07:08:21 PM
why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley?  obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 

the comparison is stupid.  look at this from a realistic prospective.  take the top 20 or so schools out of the picture, they are exceptions to the rule in basically all situations, at least in getting that first job.


stop compariing cooley and harvard. 

more likely cooley and msu would be competing for jobs.  something like that.  and harvard grads with BU or BC or NYU grads. 

Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 07:36:33 PM
why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley?  obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 

the comparison is stupid.  look at this from a realistic prospective.  take the top 20 or so schools out of the picture, they are exceptions to the rule in basically all situations, at least in getting that first job.


stop compariing cooley and harvard. 

more likely cooley and msu would be competing for jobs.  something like that.  and harvard grads with BU or BC or NYU grads. 



I agree completely, we're just being goaded by GetReal/usnewz who seems to hold the indefensible view that Harvard Law students and Cooley Law students are essentially identical in legal skill.

How?  Don't ask me - apparently some people just slip through the cracks of the educational system.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: nown4ever on March 02, 2006, 07:40:59 PM
Why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley? Obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 


Yes. That is true. But the fact that a top student at Cooley would not have a harder time to be at the top at Harvard remains unchanged. One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...
Title: Artificial selection: LSAT bias affects us all
Post by: username on March 02, 2006, 07:46:34 PM

One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...


Indeed! Here it is an article on thje issue

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2002/09/19/Opinion/Artificial.Selection.Lsat.Bias.Affects.Us.All-281888.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hlrecord.org
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 02, 2006, 08:23:30 PM
yea, i realize the lsat is not a very good indicator of who is going to be an excellent student, but the truth is that there are very few students at harvard or any of the top schools that dont have excellent academic resumes. 

there may be some odd balls with the 3.0 and the 180 but for hte most part its 3.8's and 175's or something to that extent. 

lets stop arguing over whether or not harvard is a good school.  we know it is.  cooley is a fine school too, but they arent attracking the same students.
Title: Re: Artificial selection: LSAT bias affects us all
Post by: paran0id on March 02, 2006, 09:40:18 PM
Indeed! Here it is an article on thje issue

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2002/09/19/Opinion/Artificial.Selection.Lsat.Bias.Affects.Us.All-281888.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.hlrecord.org

... ok i'll admit i merely skimmed the article, but i didn't see anything about a correlation between LSAT scores and performance. If anything, it's complaining about being biased against woman/minorities (i'd never heard the woman arguement before). Was there a single sentence I missed or something? I'd expect any arguement that attempted to show the LSAT was not indicative of performance to be heavily supported with data. Such an arguement would require a lot more than a single sentence.

Thanks for the irrelevant link though. Good job. Keep it up.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 02, 2006, 10:27:11 PM
Why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley? Obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 


Yes. That is true. But the fact that a top student at Cooley would not have a harder time to be at the top at Harvard remains unchanged. One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...

This is simply ridiculous.

First, while LSAT isn't a great predictor of law school success...UNDERGRAD GPA IS WORSE!!!  This has long been documented.  See http://www.lsacnet.org/Research/Predictive-Validity-of-LSAT-Summary-Correlation-Studies-ES.htm for an article proving such.  So your verbal rolling of the eyes at the LSAT is silly, especially when you rely on the fact that Cooley has some people with great GPAs.  And even on the GPA front, Harvard is better, see below.

Secondly, Harvard students come in with a better LSAT and GPA, by far, period.  Here's some data from lawschoolnumbers.com for fun:

Harvard:  118 accepted this year, average GPA/LSAT:  3.84/174.3
Cooley:  65 accepted this year, average GPA/LSAT:  3.07/149.9

Wow.

I am not arguing with the contention that a handful of Cooley students could be competitive at Harvard.  But I'm sure I could count them on one hand - and even for those students, to say it'd be just as easy competing against students far superior to their competition at Cooley is simply to kid oneself.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 02, 2006, 10:36:31 PM
haha, this cooley vs. harvard stuff is getting out of hand and funny.

anyway, the thread was initially about how GPA is not neccessary in law school.  undergrad is a different story for a number of reasons, but we arent arguing whether the LSAT is a good indicator of law school perfermance or whether undergrad GPA is a good indicator either.  what i was trying to say is that regardless of how u got to law school, once your there law school GPA becomes fairly worthless as a result of curves.

they really just dont make much sense.  a class should distribute itsself evenly as a natural result of the class.  if it doesnt and students perform equally, they should be graded equally.  if you have a class of 10 students and they are all some type of super genius students, it doesnt make sense to fail any of them, and vice versa if u have a class of idiots they should all fail.  there shouldnt be a distribution between them with mandatory A's, B's, C's, etc. 

Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: majorporcupine on March 02, 2006, 11:47:36 PM
haha, this cooley vs. harvard stuff is getting out of hand and funny.

anyway, the thread was initially about how GPA is not neccessary in law school.  undergrad is a different story for a number of reasons, but we arent arguing whether the LSAT is a good indicator of law school perfermance or whether undergrad GPA is a good indicator either.  what i was trying to say is that regardless of how u got to law school, once your there law school GPA becomes fairly worthless as a result of curves.

they really just dont make much sense.  a class should distribute itsself evenly as a natural result of the class.  if it doesnt and students perform equally, they should be graded equally.  if you have a class of 10 students and they are all some type of super genius students, it doesnt make sense to fail any of them, and vice versa if u have a class of idiots they should all fail.  there shouldnt be a distribution between them with mandatory A's, B's, C's, etc. 



Wow, I didn't realize I opened up such a can of worms with an off-hand comment about Cooley vs. Harvard.

For your last point, though, I think there should be a curve.  Getting into Harvard already gives you the "super genius" boost; your grades should reflect how you did relative to that competition.

Of course, grades in general are just stupid.  :D
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on March 04, 2006, 12:07:08 AM
it's been pointed out before that gpa is still necessary to distinguish distance between ranks. #1 may have a 4.0 and #2 may have a 3.0. If all the data you had was 4.0 and 3.0 you would think the students were worlds apart. If all you had was #1 and #2 you would think the students were very close together. In a more realistic situation, students in the 50-33 range may be very tightly grouped while students >33 and <50 may be distant from 'the pack'.

this, of course, does not mean that the #1/4.0 at cooley would be a #1/4.0 at harvard. much of this arguement lies upon the fact that the professors who teach the classes typically grade the classes. student X may answer a K hypo at cooley and be awarded a perfect score because it was incredible (by cooley standards and the standards that the professor sees student to student / year to year). given the same hypo and the same answer, a harvard prof might grade the answer an A- or a B+ or even lower, because he expects to see answers of a higher quality.

to tread into the retarded analogy region again (nobody liked my midget thing... i shouldve included a yellow brick road): assume basketball shooting was a class. at cooley, most of the guards shoot 30%. There's a few that shoot 55 or 60%, and they are exceptional. Their coach thinks they're the sh*t and they get A's. at Harvard, everyone shoots at least 50%. most shoot 75-85%, and the best shoot 95%. the harvard coach wouldn't dream of giving an A to someone who shot under 90%. he routinely gives Cs to 45-65% shooters. if the top cooley shooters (55-60%) transferred to harvard, their A's become C's.

or imagine the AAA baseball batter that hits .550 with 40 HRs. he might be the best in the AAA league because he's batting against AAA pitching. if you bumped him to the majors would you expect him to hit as well? of course not.

to put it blunty: Cooley is the sticks. HLS is the bigs.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RootBrewskies on March 04, 2006, 01:57:50 PM
this thread has become pointless because of the gross over exageration that is going on.  first of all, the difference between #1 and #2 is not going to be so spread apart that it is going to matter that greatly.  obvioulsy #1 looks better on a resume than #2 but most law firms arent going to hire someone based simply on rank alone.  if #1 and #2 show up for the same job its probably going to come down to the interview, not their GPA. 

obviously #1 at harvard counts for more than #1 at cooley or most other schools, simply due to the reputation of the school. 

the arguement that i am giving is that with the way that law school works and how selective it has become in recent years, most schools are going to find themselves with a group of students that will before equally, and some that will excell and some that will fall behind.  this is why a curve shouldnt be neccessary.  it should happen naturally.  students can still be ranked against one another, but why should it be neccessary for someone to receive a C or D if they are performing at a B level?  simply because of the curve?  that doesnt make sense. 

grade students and give them the grade they deserve, the class ranking will show where students stand in their class, GPA doesnt show that anyway.  GPA should be used to show at what level your performing, class rank should be to show how you are performing in comparison to everyone else.  why there are curves simply doesnt make sense. 

it only functions to hurt the job prospects of students at schools with difficult curves, and that is a school purposely putting its students at a disadvantage.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 04, 2006, 04:19:23 PM
The problem is that the students don't all take the same classes, and thus aren't taking all the same exams.  As you probably experienced in undergrad, the easiest way to get good grades is to take easy classes.  These can be either easy because the professor grades easy, or easy because the professor writes an easy exam.  In either case, the students have not necessarily performed exceptionally; rather, it is the setup of the class that has allowed many good grades.  Acing an easy exam is not an exceptional thing to do, especially if everyone is doing it.  Why then should the student get an exceptional grade, such as an A?  Along these same lines, why should a student who has mastered the material, yet had a professor who wrote one hell of an exam, get a C just because the exam was hard, or the professor subscribed to the "nobody's perfect, As are for perfect" theory?  And if you're okay with this non-curved system, how can you expect any students to take worthwhile but difficult classes?

Putting facts to theory:  Student A takes a hard exam, gets a 70.  Student B takes an easy exam, gets an 85.  It is simply unfair to give Student A a C and Student B a B+ without looking at the difficulty of the exam.  How can we gauge the difficulty of the exam?  We look at how the class fared as a whole.  You're never going to have an entire class of slackers, so if the median grade is a 60, the exam was really hard - a 70 on this exam is excellent.  On the other hand, you're never going to have an entire class of overachievers, so if the median grade is a 93, the exam was easy, and an 85 on this exam is poor.  This way, the student who was more excellent - the 70 student - got the better grade, and who can argue with that?  Also, you nip the "high school shop class" mentality in the bud - that is to say, nobody takes Mickey Mouse classes that they have no interest in simply to get good grades, and additionally, nobody has incentive to avoid difficult but interesting classes.

It's an imperfect system, I will grant.  However, keep in mind that curves are individualized to each class - if the class is very spread out, the professor can give lots of As and Cs, whereas if the class is closely bunched, the professor can give out lots of Bs, all without changing the curve median.  It isn't as though there is some machine unfairly distributing grades. 

At any rate, it's gotta be better than letting professors influence the job prospects of their students solely based on their own whim in how hard an exam to write.

this thread has become pointless because of the gross over exageration that is going on.  first of all, the difference between #1 and #2 is not going to be so spread apart that it is going to matter that greatly.  obvioulsy #1 looks better on a resume than #2 but most law firms arent going to hire someone based simply on rank alone.  if #1 and #2 show up for the same job its probably going to come down to the interview, not their GPA. 

obviously #1 at harvard counts for more than #1 at cooley or most other schools, simply due to the reputation of the school. 

the arguement that i am giving is that with the way that law school works and how selective it has become in recent years, most schools are going to find themselves with a group of students that will before equally, and some that will excell and some that will fall behind.  this is why a curve shouldnt be neccessary.  it should happen naturally.  students can still be ranked against one another, but why should it be neccessary for someone to receive a C or D if they are performing at a B level?  simply because of the curve?  that doesnt make sense. 

grade students and give them the grade they deserve, the class ranking will show where students stand in their class, GPA doesnt show that anyway.  GPA should be used to show at what level your performing, class rank should be to show how you are performing in comparison to everyone else.  why there are curves simply doesnt make sense. 

it only functions to hurt the job prospects of students at schools with difficult curves, and that is a school purposely putting its students at a disadvantage.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: bulletproof on March 04, 2006, 09:44:00 PM
This thread is like reading a really well written opinion for a case followed by an excellent dissent.  I find myself saying "good point, that makes perfect sense" and then saying "hmmm, ah yes - this one is right".  haha.  Anyhow I'm not a big fan of curves either, but I can see how in law school it makes sense.  In the end I think the argument for taking an interesting class with a difficult exam vs. a boring one with an easy exam just might be the best argument in favor of the curve.  The biggest problem I have with a curve is the fact that it encourages some students to go nuts and bury everyone else.  You'll see this more in the case of legal writing memo, or App Ad paper, etc than on a test.  While we should all be doing top notch work, I dislike the fact that the guy or gal, with no life, completely over does the project and distorts the curve in the process.  I appreciate a page limit more for that reason than for the fact that it makes the paper shorter to write.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 04, 2006, 10:24:34 PM
This thread is like reading a really well written opinion for a case followed by an excellent dissent.  I find myself saying "good point, that makes perfect sense" and then saying "hmmm, ah yes - this one is right".  haha.  Anyhow I'm not a big fan of curves either, but I can see how in law school it makes sense.  In the end I think the argument for taking an interesting class with a difficult exam vs. a boring one with an easy exam just might be the best argument in favor of the curve.  The biggest problem I have with a curve is the fact that it encourages some students to go nuts and bury everyone else.  You'll see this more in the case of legal writing memo, or App Ad paper, etc than on a test.  While we should all be doing top notch work, I dislike the fact that the guy or gal, with no life, completely over does the project and distorts the curve in the process.  I appreciate a page limit more for that reason than for the fact that it makes the paper shorter to write.

I agree that grades should always be assigned based on the quality of one's work and not on the quantity.  I don't know about you guys, but this hasn't been a problem for me, largely because my legal practice is not graded. ;D ;D ;D  Nonetheless, this is typically taken care of on exams by either a page limit or a time limit.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: RC1.2 on March 05, 2006, 05:44:58 PM
Why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley? Obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 


Yes. That is true. But the fact that a top student at Cooley would not have a harder time to be at the top at Harvard remains unchanged. One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...

BLACK, LATION/A, NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WHO OVERCOME THE INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN K-12 EDUCATION AND THE RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO EARN THE SAME GPAs AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS SCORE FAR LOWER ON THE LSAT - FOR BLACK STUDENTS, THE GAP IS 9.2 POINTS ON AVERAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A BLACK AND U-M GRADUATE WITH A 3.7 GPA WILL SCORE 9.2 POINTS LOWER ON THE LSAT THAN A WHITE U-M GRADUATE WITH THE SAME GPA.

http://www.umich.edu/~daap/facts.htm#3
Title: Here It Is The Other Link
Post by: alan on March 05, 2006, 05:54:24 PM

... ok i'll admit i merely skimmed the article, but i didn't see anything about a correlation between LSAT scores and performance. If anything, it's complaining about being biased against woman/minorities (i'd never heard the woman arguement before). Was there a single sentence I missed or something? I'd expect any arguement that attempted to show the LSAT was not indicative of performance to be heavily supported with data. Such an arguement would require a lot more than a single sentence.

Thanks for the irrelevant link though. Good job. Keep it up.


EVEN AS MUCH AS 10 POINTS UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF SCORING IS INCONSEQUENTIAL IN PREDICTING THE RELATIVE SUCCESS OF STUDENTS IN LAW SCHOOL.

http://www.saltlaw.org/StatementLSATBrochure.pdf
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 06, 2006, 06:12:57 AM
Why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley? Obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 


Yes. That is true. But the fact that a top student at Cooley would not have a harder time to be at the top at Harvard remains unchanged. One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...

BLACK, LATION/A, NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WHO OVERCOME THE INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN K-12 EDUCATION AND THE RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO EARN THE SAME GPAs AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS SCORE FAR LOWER ON THE LSAT - FOR BLACK STUDENTS, THE GAP IS 9.2 POINTS ON AVERAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A BLACK AND U-M GRADUATE WITH A 3.7 GPA WILL SCORE 9.2 POINTS LOWER ON THE LSAT THAN A WHITE U-M GRADUATE WITH THE SAME GPA.

http://www.umich.edu/~daap/facts.htm#3

As is typical of the Defend Affirmative Action Party, you've quoted interesting facts without proving anything.  GPA and LSAT test entirely different things.  You've proven that Blacks perform relatively poorer on the LSAT than Whites with equivalent GPAs.  But you haven't proven that this is anything other than a fair test of logical prowess. 

For example, I can eat cereal just as fast as my brother, but he eats hot dogs faster than me.  Can I jump around and yell "Damn it, hot dogs are biased against me!"  No.  Can I alternatively yell "Hot dog eating shouldn't be considered in determining who goes to Speedeating school!"  No.

Additionally, you haven't proven that the LSAT shouldn't be used as a major component in law school admissions.  (It correlates better with law school success than does GPA, you know.)  ADDITIONALLY, if that LSAT gap WEREN'T there, it would do away with much of the justification for Affirmative Action.  DO YOU WANT TO DO AWAY WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION???  I'm guessing not.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tjking82 on March 06, 2006, 06:15:34 AM
BTW, the website you linked to is a perfect example of terrible legal argumentation.  It begins by being conclusory as all hell, and never backs any of these statements with proof.

I f-ing HATE the DAAP.  Champions of ignorance and propoganda.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: paran0id on March 06, 2006, 10:25:29 AM
WTF was that all about? Someone with a temp screen name makes a single post with the sole intention of starting a flame?

I do love, however, how the AA people make arguements that imply things they're against. "Blacks typically score 10 points lower than whites on the LSAT, even if their GPAs were identical." "There is a disproportionately high number of minorities in the bottom half of law school classes." Me thinks there may be a connection.

So assume the LSAT is biased, and therefore minorities need a boost to their score via AA. But apparently law school is biased too. I guess they need a GPA boost. Maybe half a point for anyone who was admitted under AA.

Finally, this didn't start off as an AA thread. It started off as a "why do we have curves", turned into a "a king at cooley is no king at harvard" rant, and got hijacked by a AA nut. Let's go back to picking on Cooley. It's more fun.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: majorporcupine on March 06, 2006, 11:45:50 AM
Should there be affirmative action for Cooley grads, considering that life seems biased against them?  ;D
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: bulletproof on March 10, 2006, 05:48:04 AM
I can eat cereal just as fast as my brother, but he eats hot dogs faster than me.  Can I jump around and yell "d**mn it, hot dogs are biased against me!"  No.

I enjoyed this, please consider a career as a law text hypo writer.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: effy on March 14, 2006, 01:29:50 PM
this thread has become pointless because of the gross over exageration that is going on.  first of all, the difference between #1 and #2 is not going to be so spread apart that it is going to matter that greatly. obvioulsy #1 looks better on a resume than #2 but most law firms arent going to hire someone based simply on rank alone. if #1 and #2 show up for the same job its probably going to come down to the interview, not their GPA. 

obviously #1 at harvard counts for more than #1 at cooley or most other schools, simply due to the reputation of the school. 

the arguement that i am giving is that with the way that law school works and how selective it has become in recent years, most schools are going to find themselves with a group of students that will before equally, and some that will excell and some that will fall behind.  this is why a curve shouldnt be neccessary.  it should happen naturally.  students can still be ranked against one another, but why should it be neccessary for someone to receive a C or D if they are performing at a B level?  simply because of the curve?  that doesnt make sense. 

grade students and give them the grade they deserve, the class ranking will show where students stand in their class, GPA doesnt show that anyway.  GPA should be used to show at what level your performing, class rank should be to show how you are performing in comparison to everyone else.  why there are curves simply doesnt make sense. 

it only functions to hurt the job prospects of students at schools with difficult curves, and that is a school purposely putting its students at a disadvantage.

At Cooley students use the same books T1 schools use and learn the exact same material out of them. However, Cooley grades atrociously. To earn a B or a C for that matter at Cooley is a well accomplished thing. Cooley grades based on the knowledge of a practicing attorney. A Cooley grad with a 2.50 GPA could blow a tier one grad with a 3.50 out the door knowledge-wise.
Title: link
Post by: a...a on March 15, 2006, 02:22:37 AM
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,32561.0.html
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: bulletproof on March 15, 2006, 09:42:12 PM
At Cooley students use the same books T1 schools use and learn the exact same material out of them. However, Cooley grades atrociously. To earn a B or a C for that matter at Cooley is a well accomplished thing. Cooley grades based on the knowledge of a practicing attorney. A Cooley grad with a 2.50 GPA could blow a tier one grad with a 3.50 out the door knowledge-wise.

Is this a serious statement?  I am not about school bashing, T1-2-3-4, whatever... if you are driven enough and try hard you'll get something out of it and perhaps become a brilliant lawyer someday, no matter where you went to school.  But to say a 2.5 gpa at Cooley is better than a 3.5 at T1 school??  If you said a 3.5 = 3.5 I wouldn't have thought much about it.  Earning a B or C is a well accomplished thing?  So then shall we assume most people are getting Ds and Fs there?  I looked into the Cooley stats on noticed that the median GPA entering was 3.01 and the median LSAT was 147, yes the last two digits are 4 and 7.  The bar passage rate for first timers?  55%.  You've got about a half-half chance of making it thru after graduation.  The tuition is about $23K, much more than many state schools with higher rankings and stats.  So I can assume there are a great many people that go to Cooley, and pay more $$, because it was the only school they could get into.  Not because of it's rep in the law community.  School pride is great, but there are limits.  It is unfortunate that people choose to spend time picking on Cooley or other schools for that matter, but lets not take that to mean that we will start trying to convince the world that Cooley is really way better than all the other schools.  Same text books and same subjects does not equal same dean, same professors, same student body.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: fedhex on March 17, 2006, 06:27:33 AM
People should understand that it is not education in law but selectivity that is rewarded once you get in the work environment. It has been noted by some authors that the fact that graduates from the most competitive, elite schools achieved the greatest earnings is scarcely surprising as these people were selected by their schools on the basis of their much higher than average credentials. This interpretation, that what matters are the personal attributes of the attendees and not what they learn while in attendance, is consistent with the fact that the course of study and the textbooks used are similar across schools of different degrees of selectivity, so it's hard to argue that there are important differences in the knowledge being provided in the different schools.

That said, it is now clear that having a JD from an elite school means most of the time nothing as far as the individual's mastery of the law and lawyering skills. As the thread above suggests, law students at top schools engage in useless theoretical discussions and know jack about the black letter law while developing no adequate lawyering skills. What happens in top law schools is that most students simply get drunk. But they do bond and network.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: pledguilty on March 17, 2006, 07:49:04 PM
People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: allwrit on March 18, 2006, 06:49:03 AM
People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.

LOL! ;)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: ginntonic on March 21, 2006, 02:07:56 PM
People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.

If u go to an American law school for a reason other than money you are stupid.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: arcanismajor on March 27, 2006, 07:24:40 PM
People should understand that it is not education in law but selectivity that is rewarded once you get in the work environment. It has been noted by some authors that the fact that graduates from the most competitive, elite schools achieved the greatest earnings is scarcely surprising as these people were selected by their schools on the basis of their much higher than average credentials. This interpretation, that what matters are the personal attributes of the attendees and not what they learn while in attendance, is consistent with the fact that the course of study and the textbooks used are similar across schools of different degrees of selectivity, so it's hard to argue that there are important differences in the knowledge being provided in the different schools.

That said, it is now clear that having a JD from an elite school means most of the time nothing as far as the individual's mastery of the law and lawyering skills. As the thread above suggests, law students at top schools engage in useless theoretical discussions and know jack about the black letter law while developing no adequate lawyering skills. What happens in top law schools is that most students simply get drunk. But they do bond and network.

Any sugestions for reform, fedhex?! (not sarcastic)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: oblada on May 03, 2006, 09:06:12 AM
At Cooley students use the same books T1 schools use and learn the exact same material out of them. However, Cooley grades atrociously. To earn a B or a C for that matter at Cooley is a well accomplished thing. Cooley grades based on the knowledge of a practicing attorney. A Cooley grad with a 2.50 GPA could blow a tier one grad with a 3.50 out the door knowledge-wise.

Is this a serious statement?  I am not about school bashing, T1-2-3-4, whatever... if you are driven enough and try hard you'll get something out of it and perhaps become a brilliant lawyer someday, no matter where you went to school.  But to say a 2.5 gpa at Cooley is better than a 3.5 at T1 school??  If you said a 3.5 = 3.5 I wouldn't have thought much about it.  Earning a B or C is a well accomplished thing?  So then shall we assume most people are getting Ds and Fs there?  I looked into the Cooley stats on noticed that the median GPA entering was 3.01 and the median LSAT was 147, yes the last two digits are 4 and 7.  The bar passage rate for first timers?  55%.  You've got about a half-half chance of making it thru after graduation.  The tuition is about $23K, much more than many state schools with higher rankings and stats.  So I can assume there are a great many people that go to Cooley, and pay more $$, because it was the only school they could get into.  Not because of it's rep in the law community.  School pride is great, but there are limits.  It is unfortunate that people choose to spend time picking on Cooley or other schools for that matter, but lets not take that to mean that we will start trying to convince the world that Cooley is really way better than all the other schools.  Same text books and same subjects does not equal same dean, same professors, same student body.

Students do whatever it takes to get into a top school for after that point they're done: I mean, it's not that they will actually learn anything valuable for that matter ... Recently, a law firm partner was horrified to find that a graduate it hired from a leading law school, an individual who had apparently not taken any course in bankruptcy or even business organization had to go to the library and take out a book on securities. On the other hand, the drinking rituals taking place in top law schools have been described in detail by many authors by now. That is what most students in top law schools do, after all, they simply get drunk. But they do bond and network. At Stanford learning is not an explicit goal. Grade inflation is pervasive in top law schools, thus almost no one fails out of these programs, which means the credential does not serve as a screen or an enforcement of minimum competency standards. In today's prestigious law schools, students have to demonstrate competence to get in, but not to get out. Every student who wants to (and who avoids financial and emotional distress) will graduate. In fact, these schools have developed elaborate grading systems to ensure that even the least competent and least interested get credit.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: veravolli on May 08, 2006, 07:11:06 PM
Awesome thread, tagging it.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: wardwilliams on May 08, 2006, 07:27:33 PM
tag
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: 8 on May 10, 2006, 03:57:29 PM
I can understand the "need" for grading on a curve on the part of law schools ... I mean, it makes sense for the law school financially. Not to mention that law schools are expected by employers to rate the meat and impose a kind of slightly paranoid mindset that is very receptive to structural authority/hierarchy. But even the law schools themselves can not pretend the current system of grading represent a "fair" way of measuring the student's knowledge of their courses' content against a neutral baseline. 

The curve encourages laziness in both professors and students. I hope that law professors, if faced with a brilliant class that "got" more of the material relative to other years or relative to an absolute scale would feel a deep and abiding sense of shame at handing out the exact same percentage of grades year after year. Unfortunately, I think none of them, even the self-styled radicals, will do anything about it. 
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: goldenchain on May 17, 2006, 08:10:18 PM
Looks like you like a lot cutting people down to size, 8!
Title: Grading On Curve
Post by: manny portuguese on July 05, 2006, 02:56:02 AM


"Even if the Cooley grad has a higher GPA" - Given each school's different grading scale, it is possible that two people have different GPAs for the same class rank at different schools.  If the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy, you might think the Cooley Grad was better than the Harvard grad.  Of course, you'd be an idiot, but you might think it.


paran0id, don't you understand that it is impossible that the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy?! It's the other way around!


             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30


What if 100% of a particular class does really well, and deserves As? (Suppose for the purpose of this experiment you bring together 100 Harvard geniuses) What if 100% did badly, and deserves Fs? (You bring 100 dumbest Cooley students). At least 20% of the first will get non-passing grades and at least 20% of the second group will get As. And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!

Why not grade objectively rather than comparatively?
Title: Re: Grading On Curve
Post by: frolick on July 08, 2006, 05:15:38 PM

What if 100% of a particular class does really well, and deserves As? (Suppose for the purpose of this experiment you bring together 100 Harvard geniuses) What if 100% did badly, and deserves Fs? (You bring 100 dumbest Cooley students). At least 20% of the first will get non-passing grades and at least 20% of the second group will get As. And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!


LOL ;)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: NotReally on July 09, 2006, 12:39:39 PM

What if 100% of a particular class does really well, and deserves As? (Suppose for the purpose of this experiment you bring together 100 Harvard geniuses) What if 100% did badly, and deserves Fs? (You bring 100 dumbest Cooley students). At least 20% of the first will get non-passing grades and at least 20% of the second group will get As. And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!



The reason this is not possible is that curves at top schools don't require anyone to fail.  At UVa for example it is recommended to professors that they give out 2 C's in a class of 100 while they are supposed to also give out 2 A+'s, but a teacher doesn't have to give out C's or A+'s as they only have to come out with an average 3.3ish for each class.  I have not been in a class where a student got an F or even a D for that matter.  Usually there are less than 50 grades in the school of over 1000 students who get a c+ or below.  So if you are at a top law school and everyone does really well, then you have the assurance of the average for the class not being below a certain point and the professor could have the option of giving everyone a B+ or whatever.  If you are a harvard genius, you don't go to schools that have mandatory failing grades. 

The reason some schools have mandatory failing grades or kick the bottom 10 percent of their classes out each semester is to raise bar passage rates.  This is not a problem at top schools. 
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: enola on July 10, 2006, 01:27:16 AM

The reason this is not possible is that curves at top schools don't require anyone to fail.  At UVa for example it is recommended to professors that they give out 2 C's in a class of 100 while they are supposed to also give out 2 A+'s, but a teacher doesn't have to give out C's or A+'s as they only have to come out with an average 3.3ish for each class.  I have not been in a class where a student got an F or even a D for that matter.  Usually there are less than 50 grades in the school of over 1000 students who get a c+ or below.  So if you are at a top law school and everyone does really well, then you have the assurance of the average for the class not being below a certain point and the professor could have the option of giving everyone a B+ or whatever.

The reason some schools have mandatory failing grades or kick the bottom 10 percent of their classes out each semester is to raise bar passage rates.  This is not a problem at top schools.
 

That's not the point, what's important is that curves ae in place at top law schools too, and the post you quoted was discussing the curve "logic" in general .. the essence of the post was, and still is, that curves are stupid.

Quote
If you are a harvard genius, you don't go to schools that have mandatory failing grades. 

Of curse you don't, but that was not the point .. the poster on top on you introduced a hypo that you are doing everything possible not to respond to .. how could you give a logical response, even if you tried to, after all?!

love, sphinx
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: oro on July 10, 2006, 03:46:01 PM

And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!


;)
Title: Re: Grading On Curve
Post by: baabaablacksheep on July 12, 2006, 06:56:59 AM


"Even if the Cooley grad has a higher GPA" - Given each school's different grading scale, it is possible that two people have different GPAs for the same class rank at different schools.  If the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy, you might think the Cooley Grad was better than the Harvard grad.  Of course, you'd be an idiot, but you might think it.


paran0id, don't you understand that it is impossible that the Cooley grad has the higher GPA and the same class rank as the Harvard guy?! It's the other way around!


             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30


What if 100% of a particular class does really well, and deserves As? (Suppose for the purpose of this experiment you bring together 100 Harvard geniuses) What if 100% did badly, and deserves Fs? (You bring 100 dumbest Cooley students). At least 20% of the first will get non-passing grades and at least 20% of the second group will get As. And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!

Why not grade objectively rather than comparatively?

I love the "let's come up with ridiculous hypos that will never happen to try to discredit a good idea" strategy.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: align on July 12, 2006, 11:38:44 PM
curves a good idea?! Gimme a @ # ! * i n g break!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: tuned on July 20, 2006, 02:12:27 AM
Stigma, according to Erving Goffman, is an attribute that makes the possessor different from, and less desirable than, others "in the category of persons available for one to be." Goffman distinguishes between two experiences of stigma by its possessor: the "discredited" and the "discreditable." In the case of the discredited, the stigmatized individual assumes his differentness is known about already or is evident on the spot. Examples of the discredited include the physically disabled or disfigured, as well as members of certain visible minorities in contexts of racial discrimination. In the case of discreditable stigma, the stigmatized individual assumes the source of stigma to be neither known about by those present nor immediately perceivable by them. Having a criminal record or being gay are examples of discreditable stigma, in that there is something about oneself that is not immediately apparent but could diminish oneself in the eyes of others if exposed.

Among the two most difficult and potentially traumatizing experiences for low students are the receipt of first-year grades and the announcement of the results of the Law Review competition. The former is confidential and remains that way unless individual students choose to share their grades with others. The latter is not formally announced but becomes common knowledge almost immediately upon the return of the 2L class in the fall. Each of these events is experienced and how they might combine to deliver a more painful and destructive blow than either could alone. After the grades come out, many people experience a profound loss of self-esteem and confidence, as well as a significant shift in their self-perception -- but no one talks about it. For these people, the information about their grades becomes a discreditable stigma, one that they do their best to hide. This process takes its toll. Those possessing a discreditable stigma must learn to manage their information. They must decide whom to tell and when, with the aim of "passing" among those who are, or are perceived by the stigmatized to be, "normal." All the time, they cope alone and in silence with the knowledge that their identity has been "spoiled."
This experience is painful and stressful, but at least it can be borne in secret.

The institutional structure does not, however, allow students to continue to suffer privately. Instead, the results of the Law Review competition spread like wildfire as soon as classes reconvene in the fall. Those students who "made it" experience a palpable change in status, a result of the significance attached to law review membership in the legal community. Those students who do not make it, although not obviously penalized or treated with overt disrespect, must now reckon with the fact that they are not among those classmates to receive the positive reinforcement from professors and classmates that accompanies Law Review membership -- and in public, no less. Not only is this failure experienced publicly as a stigma of the discredited, but for many students it follows several months of silently carrying the knowledge of a discreditable stigma and fearing its exposure. The determination of Law Review membership takes on such significance precisely because of this timing -- the publicizing of who made it is experienced as the "outing" of the feelings of inadequacy that those with an unremarkable exam performance had kept quiet for so long.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: U2 on July 20, 2006, 08:58:40 PM
Quite interesting!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: klinex on July 21, 2006, 03:09:22 AM
U2, you mean it's interesting the post of "tuned" or this thread in general?
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: modena99 on July 25, 2006, 03:36:08 PM
Curves affect the following things: class rank, interviews, attrition, maintaining (or acquring) scholarships, and sometimes participation in law school activities.

I agree that a person with a 2.5 at a lower ranked school may not on average be up to par with a Ivy league student. However, what is not up to par? I believe Ivy League students in general have better mathematical/spatial relationship skills, which is a major factor in their history of high standardized tests scores. You could consider this as abstract logical reasoning skills. I think that's their primary advantage, which it seems isn't a huge aspect of law practice.

However, I would be remiss to say that those logical skills aren't important. Although, even if this is true, we are still presuming all these Ivy caliber students have the ability to apply this ability in a real-world context instead of a school setting. I think that's where things fall apart. Also, we're presuming that learning by doing will never close the gap in proficiency, which we know by anecdote is not true.   

I'm presuming that Ivy League students may have the ability to do more quantitative and math intensive law work but that's their primary advantage. That is a small slice of law practice and law school. 

You cannot compare low ranked law schools to high ranked law schools because of attrition. Although, I think the person making the Cooley and Harvard comparison was on to something. It's easier for a person at an Ivy caliber school to not put forth much effort as a Cooley type student and still pass. However, it's unfair to presume those Ivy League students aren't studying as hard. Also, the higher ranked schools have extremely high bar passage rates, so the challenge on the competence of these students at face value is moot. Although, I can understand the outrage at these top-ranked schools blatant grade inflation, while lower ranked schools stand steady with low curves as employer's expectations rise. 

I believe the PAR ranking by Cooley reveals the flaws of these numerous grading policies. The relative performance of some higher ranked schools is equivalent to lower ranked schools but their grading policies are sometimes wildly different.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: egolaw on November 03, 2006, 08:22:53 PM

             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30




[...] because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him [...]


So T4 students are twice discriminated against with regard to the GPA, the first time when they are graded by the T4s and then again when they are screened by employers that look down on T4s?
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: pixelaw on November 03, 2006, 08:33:10 PM

And what would happen in case all the 100 Harvard/Cooley-level students decide to simply write down "That's how stupid grading on a curve is." -- whom would you give As and whom the Cs?!


manny, you hit the nail right on the @ # ! * i n g head!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: triad on November 05, 2006, 04:28:10 AM

             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30




[...] because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him [...]


So T4 students are twice discriminated against with regard to the GPA, the first time when they are graded by the T4s and then again when they are screened by employers that look down on T4s?


Don't you understand that employers would not look down on T4s, were the latter not to grade atrociously, much different than T1s?! The two go together.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: ilove on November 05, 2006, 05:19:25 PM

             Harvard    Cooley
top 50%      3.40       3.00
top 25%      3.70       3.30




[...] because Harvard has a higher grading scale than Cooley our transferee would get better grades than he got at Cooley, so his GPA will be 3.7, instead of the 3.4 Cooley gave him [...]


So T4 students are twice discriminated against with regard to the GPA, the first time when they are graded by the T4s and then again when they are screened by employers that look down on T4s?


Don't you understand that employers would not look down on T4s, were the latter not to grade atrociously, much different than T1s?! The two go together.


The two don't need/have to go together. Both the T1 and T4 could set the curve at, say, B, with employers well continuing to look down on the T4 and its grads.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: search on December 04, 2006, 12:49:27 AM
;)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: twoways on December 07, 2006, 01:59:07 AM

The two don't need/have to go together. Both the T1 and T4 could set the curve at, say, B, with employers well continuing to look down on the T4 and its grads.


Ilove, that's called "self-fulfilling prophecy."
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: cleverhans on December 07, 2006, 02:05:28 AM

Ilove, that's called "self-fulfilling prophecy."


Maybe you wanted to say, "triad, that's called "self-fulfilling prophecy."?
Title: Re: link
Post by: chrismelon on December 31, 2006, 03:32:52 AM

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,1650.0.html







[...]

Incidentally, did you know that one only needs a 162 on the LSAT to qualify for MENSA?



Not anymore!

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)




Hahaha! Mensa is ridiculous!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: Glenda Hatchet on January 16, 2007, 07:34:11 PM
What kind of cheap-ass whore Mensa has to be to change qualifying scores like that? Huh?!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: xawgz on February 28, 2007, 09:21:01 PM


You cannot compare low ranked law schools to high ranked law schools because of attrition. Although, I think the person making the Cooley and Harvard comparison was on to something. It's easier for a person at an Ivy caliber school to not put forth much effort as a Cooley type student and still pass. However, it's unfair to presume those Ivy League students aren't studying as hard. Also, the higher ranked schools have extremely high bar passage rates, so the challenge on the competence of these students at face value is moot. Although, I can understand the outrage at these top-ranked schools blatant grade inflation, while lower ranked schools stand steady with low curves as employer's expectations rise. 


At Harvard there is not the degree of rigorous classroom discussion that entering students envision. They near graduation especially cognizant of the school's pedigree as they navigate the frigid waters of the job market. However the fact that the school has a strong alumni network and its name has currency in the real world helps them a lot.

There is grade inflation at Harvard and other top law schools. Hey, if it can happen at Harvard, this should come as no surprise that it happens elsewhere. According to a typical student transcript, he has an GPA worthy of magna cum laude honors. While many students study hard, there are some techniques and concepts they simply do not master. They remember times when they were clearly baffled by exam questions, but they got an A for the semester nonetheless. In real terms, after they subtract out (grade) inflation, they know they probably earned a B+. I know there are many hardworking law students across the country getting the similar kid glove treatment from their professors, and that sends the wrong message.

Law schools have to abandon a trade press ranking system that evaluates them more like competing college football teams than sure-footed institutions producing the nation's attorneys. In the meantime, here is a handy formula for employers looking to hire JDs. It can be considered a discount rate for obtaining the net present value of the degree. It goes like this: Take a graduate's GPA and discount it by 15%. Take his elite school tag and discount it by a further 10%, then make him an offer. If the graduate rejects your offer, his decision may have had more to do with hefty loan repayments than his believing he is overqualified.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: ericptk2000 on March 02, 2007, 09:06:21 AM
There are so many comparisons between Cooley and Harvard on this board that it makes me sick.  Maybe a better comparison would be between Cooley and Stanford because we know Cooley is in fact better!!  Of course this is determined by going to Cooley's website and look at their rankings.  If that is not a credible source then I feel nothing is!!  Therefore, Top 75% at Cooley is probably only slightly better than top 10% or so at Stanford!! Don't take my word, independent researchers who work for Cooley did the stats.
Title: Re: link
Post by: rabahlaw on March 03, 2007, 09:54:10 PM

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,1650.0.html







[...]

Incidentally, did you know that one only needs a 162 on the LSAT to qualify for MENSA?



Not anymore!

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)


Hahaha! Mensa is ridiculous!


Bear in mind that LSAT is not an adaptive test!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: movablazure on March 05, 2007, 01:18:15 AM
That's definitely something to look into, rabah!
Title: LSAT Watch - Brave New World!!
Post by: m a r g e r e t on March 05, 2007, 09:55:28 PM


Bear in mind that LSAT is not an adaptive test!


It is likely that the current "paper and pencil" version of the LSAT will soon be a relic of the past. Computers have transformed our lives. The LSAT will soon be administered on computer in the form of a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT). Early indications suggest the following as possible changes:

- the LSAT CAT will contain both multiple choice and non-multiple choice question types;

- there will be entirely new question types including the possibility of a "listening comprehension" test.

The LSAT CAT will (at least initially) be less predictable and harder to prepare for. Tell your friends to take the LSAT now and avoid the new test format!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: LALaw04 on March 05, 2007, 10:17:42 PM
Nice curves!  Seriously, I agree with just about everything said here.  Good advice from a lot of you folks!!!


http://www.cafepress.com/lawgear
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: ping on March 12, 2007, 02:26:24 PM
Awesome thread!
Title: Re: LSAT Watch - Brave New World!!
Post by: lawschoolaw on March 21, 2007, 04:33:55 PM

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)

Bear in mind that LSAT is not an adaptive test!


It is likely that the current "paper and pencil" version of the LSAT will soon be a relic of the past. Computers have transformed our lives. The LSAT will soon be administered on computer in the form of a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT). Early indications suggest the following as possible changes:

- the LSAT CAT will contain both multiple choice and non-multiple choice question types;

- there will be entirely new question types including the possibility of a "listening comprehension" test.

The LSAT CAT will (at least initially) be less predictable and harder to prepare for. Tell your friends to take the LSAT now and avoid the new test format!


;)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: p a n on April 02, 2007, 07:23:46 PM
Very interesting indeed!
Title: Re: LSAT Watch - Brave New World!!
Post by: Buddy Holly on April 03, 2007, 07:45:17 PM

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)

Bear in mind that LSAT is not an adaptive test!


It is likely that the current "paper and pencil" version of the LSAT will soon be a relic of the past. Computers have transformed our lives. The LSAT will soon be administered on computer in the form of a Computer Adaptive Test (CAT). Early indications suggest the following as possible changes:

- the LSAT CAT will contain both multiple choice and non-multiple choice question types;

- there will be entirely new question types including the possibility of a "listening comprehension" test.

The LSAT CAT will (at least initially) be less predictable and harder to prepare for. Tell your friends to take the LSAT now and avoid the new test format!


;)

They are lying. The LSAT for entrance was 163 up until recently.

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=542108&mc=51&forum_id=2
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: cpndt on April 04, 2007, 07:28:01 PM
They're not lying, Buddy. They have simply revised the standard retroactively.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: Buddy Holly on April 05, 2007, 07:06:35 AM
They're not lying, Buddy. They have simply revised the standard retroactively.

Well, whatever you call it, when I was applying to law school (last year), it was 163.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: machette on April 05, 2007, 06:08:22 PM
Here it is explained in detail the whole thing,

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,1007.msg32720.html#msg32720
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: StevePirates on April 25, 2007, 11:23:12 AM
http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm


there's the link in case anyone is curious.  It's based on the percentile now, not the score.  For example when I took the test 167 was good enough for 95%
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: veganvenus on April 25, 2007, 01:57:14 PM
1. Yes, it is nearly impossible to fail out of Harvard. Indeed, it is quite easy to get a B-.

2. Furthermore, most have BigLaw offers by October of their 2L year.

3. This does not mean that all, or even most HLS students then spend all their time drinking, and have no engaging class discussion.  Having the option to do so does not necessitate one take it.

People have a way of adjusting their expectations according to their circumstances. Whereas the same students, were they at Brooklyn, wold be quite happy getting an offer from a top 50 firm, the culture at HLS convinces you that this is not success.  Only an offer from Cravath, which you turn down for an Appellate clerkship, will suffice.  Ergo, many, not all, continue to work hard and remain the same anal-retentive nerds that got them there in the first place.

Yes, absolutely, some spend weekends drinking at the Hong Kong.  But that may well be because those people are more visible.... a vocal plurality?  Perhaps less visible are the hoards that make it difficult to find an open carrel anywhere in the library. 

HLS's curve is favorable, but that does not mean that it is really 'grade inflation'.  It is populated by people who got As all their lives.  If anything, the B/B+ average seems below what many deserve.

There is inflation at the lower end of the curve, for those who don't want a clerkship, have stopped caring, and have discovered the wonders of a scorpion bowl.  Being able to turn in the bare minimum and get a C, to turn in a half-assed effort and get a B- is not quite fair to those who struggle endlessly to get those grades elsewhere. 

However, that should not reflect poorly on the rest of the student body who still slave away just like the rest of you.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: browsingatwork on April 26, 2007, 02:38:13 AM

(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9775/untitleddo5.jpg)

Hahaha! Mensa is ridiculous!


LOL - Take a look here, they changed it again! Too bad it's too late! ;)

(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/2637/imagedi1ka1.jpg)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: 17 on May 15, 2008, 09:42:51 AM

[...] In the case of discreditable stigma, the stigmatized individual assumes the source of stigma to be neither known about by those present nor immediately perceivable by them. Having a criminal record or being gay are examples of discreditable stigma, in that there is something about oneself that is not immediately apparent but could diminish oneself in the eyes of others if exposed.

[...] After the grades come out, many people experience a profound loss of self-esteem and confidence, as well as a significant shift in their self-perception -- but no one talks about it. For these people, the information about their grades becomes a discreditable stigma, one that they do their best to hide. This process takes its toll. Those possessing a discreditable stigma must learn to manage their information. [...]


Receiving less-than-perfect first year grades in law school is FAR more discrediting. I've been gay all my life and I can safely say the discreditable stigma in the former case is much more tougher to handle!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: dru on May 15, 2008, 10:21:07 AM
Hahaha - you're so @ # ! * i n g funny 17! ;)
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: mini 6 on May 10, 2011, 12:44:50 PM
Why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley? Obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 


Yes. That is true. But the fact that a top student at Cooley would not have a harder time to be at the top at Harvard remains unchanged. One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...

BLACK, LATION/A, NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WHO OVERCOME THE INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN K-12 EDUCATION AND THE RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO EARN THE SAME GPAs AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS SCORE FAR LOWER ON THE LSAT - FOR BLACK STUDENTS, THE GAP IS 9.2 POINTS ON AVERAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A BLACK AND U-M GRADUATE WITH A 3.7 GPA WILL SCORE 9.2 POINTS LOWER ON THE LSAT THAN A WHITE U-M GRADUATE WITH THE SAME GPA.

http://www.umich.edu/~daap/facts.htm#3



Latino here as the Census Bureau applies the term :) -- no significant drop in result I would presume (GPA 3.5, LSAT 163) but of course the fact that I came to the US as a child may have to do something with it..
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: s.t. on October 19, 2011, 05:59:18 PM


BLACK, LATION/A, NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WHO OVERCOME THE INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN K-12 EDUCATION AND THE RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO EARN THE SAME GPAs AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS SCORE FAR LOWER ON THE LSAT - FOR BLACK STUDENTS, THE GAP IS 9.2 POINTS ON AVERAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A BLACK AND U-M GRADUATE WITH A 3.7 GPA WILL SCORE 9.2 POINTS LOWER ON THE LSAT THAN A WHITE U-M GRADUATE WITH THE SAME GPA.

http://www.umich.edu/~daap/facts.htm#3


Have you ever heard about Stereotype Threat? That when a person's social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype?! The underperformance is to be attributed to a person's anxiety that he or she will conform to the negative stereotype. It manifests itself in various ways, including distraction and increased body temperature, all of which diminish performance level. The two researchers who coined the term, Steele and Aronson, originally speculated that anxiety and narrowed attention, resulting from attempts to suppress stereotype-related thoughts, contribute to the observed deficits in performance. In 2008, an integrated model of stereotype threat was published. It focused on three interrelated factors: 1) stress arousal, which impairs the processing of information in the prefrontal cortex; 2) performance monitoring, which narrows attention; 3) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions. Stereotype threat has been shown to disrupt working memory, increase self-consciousness about one's performance, and cause individuals to try and suppress negative thoughts as well as negative emotions such as anxiety.

Stereotype threat thus can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a person comes to resemble his or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: p r i m e on October 20, 2011, 02:51:33 PM

Have you ever heard about Stereotype Threat? That when a person's social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype?! The underperformance is to be attributed to a person's anxiety that he or she will conform to the negative stereotype. It manifests itself in various ways, including distraction and increased body temperature, all of which diminish performance level. The two researchers who coined the term, Steele and Aronson, originally speculated that anxiety and narrowed attention, resulting from attempts to suppress stereotype-related thoughts, contribute to the observed deficits in performance. In 2008, an integrated model of stereotype threat was published. It focused on three interrelated factors: 1) stress arousal, which impairs the processing of information in the prefrontal cortex; 2) performance monitoring, which narrows attention; 3) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions. Stereotype threat has been shown to disrupt working memory, increase self-consciousness about one's performance, and cause individuals to try and suppress negative thoughts as well as negative emotions such as anxiety.

Stereotype threat thus can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a person comes to resemble his or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations.


Assuming such a Stereotype Threat thing exists, you are not making things better by mentioning it - B I T C H !!!
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: svedka on October 29, 2011, 09:00:09 PM

Have you ever heard about Stereotype Threat? That when a person's social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype?! The underperformance is to be attributed to a person's anxiety that he or she will conform to the negative stereotype. It manifests itself in various ways, including distraction and increased body temperature, all of which diminish performance level. The two researchers who coined the term, Steele and Aronson, originally speculated that anxiety and narrowed attention, resulting from attempts to suppress stereotype-related thoughts, contribute to the observed deficits in performance. In 2008, an integrated model of stereotype threat was published. It focused on three interrelated factors: 1) stress arousal, which impairs the processing of information in the prefrontal cortex; 2) performance monitoring, which narrows attention; 3) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions. Stereotype threat has been shown to disrupt working memory, increase self-consciousness about one's performance, and cause individuals to try and suppress negative thoughts as well as negative emotions such as anxiety.

Stereotype threat thus can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a person comes to resemble his or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations.


Assuming such a Stereotype Threat thing exists, you are not making things better by mentioning it - B I T C H !!!


prime, you appear to have a low coping sense of humor .. :)
Title: Re: Extra-Sexual-Repression, Technology & Civilization
Post by: G Yalo on March 28, 2012, 03:38:11 PM
Quote

Quote
Quote

niki, Freudian theories do not necessarily rule out a free, non-repressive society. Freud's speculation that civilization is originally based on a necessary sexual repression recognized for its merits, it has been suggested that:

(1) only a part of this has come from the conditions of scarcity which obliged humans to work, with another part coming from living in class-divided societies where ruling classes impose an extra repression over and above that arising from natural scarcity,

(2) with the coming of automation and the like, scarcity has now been conquered. This being so, sexual repression - that imposed by natural conditions as well as that imposed by class-divided society - is no longer necessary. Civilization need no longer be based on sexual repression. A free, non-repressive society is possible.

Herbert Marcuse has in fact explained why people accept capitalism -- they have been psychologically manipulated into wanting it. In other words, their basic "instincts" have been remoulded so as to fit in with capitalist society. The issue now is how will such people come to want to get rid of capitalism.

[...]


It could not be otherwise. If the humanization of the oppressed signifies subversion, so also does their freedom; hence the necessity for constant control. And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate "things." This tendency of the oppressor consciousness to "in-animate" everything and everyone it encounters, in its eagerness to possess, unquestionably corresponds with a tendency to sadism. Fromm maintained that,

Quote

The pleasure in complete domination over another person (or other animate creature) is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Another way of formulating the same thought is to say that the aim of sadism is to transform a man into a thing, something animate into something inanimate, since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life -- freedom


Sadistic love is a perverted love -- a love of death, not of life. One of the characteristics of the oppressor consciousness and its necrophilic view of the world is thus sadism. As the oppressor consciousness, in order to dominate, tries to deter to search, the restlessness, and the creative power which characterize life, it kills life. More and more, the oppressors are using science and technology as unquestionably powerful instruments for their purpose: the maintenance of the oppressive order through manipulation and repression. The oppressed, as objects, as "things," have no purposes except those their oppressors prescribe for them.

[...]



I can make sense of this - in the Western world people tend to treat each-other as objects when it comes to sex too - people collide, go to bed because of some kind of "chemistry," and then "split" when the chemistry is "gone," veering off in different directions until they each collide with someone else. They can go through dozens of relationships in this way, blind to their own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of their lovers. Nothing changes in these relationships and nothing changes from one relationship to the next because nothing is revealed.

In the matings based on "chemistry", as opposed to romantic love, people never open themselves up emotionally and so they can never break down the wall that separates them from the other "body" in bed. Even the sex is often only "intercourse" in a technical sense because there isn't any real commingling of pleasure, only an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Freud once described every sexual act "as a process in which 4 persons are involved,"  by which he meant, among other things, the fantasy that each person takes to bed along with his or her lover. In sex without tenderness, you never escape that fantasy because you never have any contact emotionally with the other person: you are making love, not to them, but to an image in your head. You are locked up inside yourself, as is your partner, and so it helps if you don't have to look at his or her face, which accounts to some extent for the growing popularity of oral sex.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002385.msg5398986#msg5398986



Interesting take on the subject, eli!

Whatever the case may be, one thing is for sure - nowadays we are definitely having sex like automatons, displaying no tenderness, emotion and the like!

Long gone are days of those deep French kisses - the barometers of love!

I connect here to another great post:

Quote
Quote

When people stub their toe, they get angry, curse, and through hobbled grimace and gritted teeth, ignore the pain. How much quicker the heal and more pleasant the day, if that poor throbbing toe were held and its pain acknowledged instead.

Then comforted by warm, sympathetic hands till pain eases and ends. After all, no matter the shoe, the speed, or the rocky path pointed, the toe never lets body down.

If small this change in thought does seem, apply that small principle to a larger scale, and note what differences result with change of belief. When the body is sick or diseased, the prescribed policy is to view the disease with winner-loser hostility. Rather than stiffening resolve and muscle and steadying nerve to control pain, rather than declaring all-out war and focusing energy and resources on destroying the invader, flip perspectives instead.

Focus light on body's plight, for it's every bit in need of caress as that stubbed toe once was. Accept the pain, validate its existence. The body system may be confused as to which is friend and which is foe. The body for allowing disease to enter or disease for daring to enter? Wars are always confusing. As peace can follow surrender in war, heal and cure can follow surrender in body disease.

[...] Applying the simple principle further, farther, wider; how far from acceptance and cooperation ever healing is? Both come inextricably bound and wound when love visits. When children stub their toe, they cry out in acknowledgment of pain.

With love in heart and hand, adults comfort and massage their sore wee toe and kiss and cuddle to ease pain.

I wonder if we do not view each other as stubbed toes too-often, and too-readily in life. It seems avoidance is easier than care, anger is faster than understanding, complaint is quicker than compliment, and ignoring common, if not prevalent.

When others hurt, they are generally left to fend for themselves, as stubbed toe often must do. When our children hurt, we hurt too. What's the difference?

Other than pedigree and proximity, nothing.


injunction, these are some great words, but truth-be-told, we're not taught to "acknowledge the pain," (we're actually told to "take it like a man")!

When love visits?! As things are - as you even say it yourself - those visitations are "allowed" for children only, so to speak! I mean, would you expect much tenderness and affection displayed before (let alone after) the, let's say, average sexual relationship? With people going thru hundreds of partners - and with your wife having become like your sister to you - what kind of affection would you expect to show towards your partner? It's more like sex conducted in a militaristic manner, just like you do it in the middle of a mess (all that other stuff you've to do)!

But your idea, of love being an end in itself, is truly great!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3004539.msg5398920#msg5398920

Title: Re: Extra-Repression (sexual), Technology, and Civilization
Post by: copain on April 01, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
Quote


niki, Freudian theories do not necessarily rule out a free, non-repressive society. Freud's speculation that civilization is originally based on a necessary sexual repression recognized for its merits, it has been suggested that:

(1) only a part of this has come from the conditions of scarcity which obliged humans to work, with another part coming from living in class-divided societies where ruling classes impose an extra repression over and above that arising from natural scarcity,

(2) with the coming of automation and the like, scarcity has now been conquered. This being so, sexual repression - that imposed by natural conditions as well as that imposed by class-divided society - is no longer necessary. Civilization need no longer be based on sexual repression. A free, non-repressive society is possible.

Herbert Marcuse has in fact explained why people accept capitalism -- they have been psychologically manipulated into wanting it. In other words, their basic "instincts" have been remoulded so as to fit in with capitalist society. The issue now is how will such people come to want to get rid of capitalism.

[...]


It could not be otherwise. If the humanization of the oppressed signifies subversion, so also does their freedom; hence the necessity for constant control. And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate "things." This tendency of the oppressor consciousness to "in-animate" everything and everyone it encounters, in its eagerness to possess, unquestionably corresponds with a tendency to sadism. Fromm maintained that,

Quote

The pleasure in complete domination over another person (or other animate creature) is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Another way of formulating the same thought is to say that the aim of sadism is to transform a man into a thing, something animate into something inanimate, since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life -- freedom


Sadistic love is a perverted love -- a love of death, not of life. One of the characteristics of the oppressor consciousness and its necrophilic view of the world is thus sadism. As the oppressor consciousness, in order to dominate, tries to deter to search, the restlessness, and the creative power which characterize life, it kills life. More and more, the oppressors are using science and technology as unquestionably powerful instruments for their purpose: the maintenance of the oppressive order through manipulation and repression. The oppressed, as objects, as "things," have no purposes except those their oppressors prescribe for them.

[...]



Interesting perspective, especially that of Marcuse that you quote - so very considerate on your part, G Yalo!

But here it is something [from poster pitchman] even more interesting, so to speak!

Quote
Quote
Quote

Give voice to the creative individual within, and contribute as born and meant.

Quote
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves,
"Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"
Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.


Originally from, "Our Deepest Fear," A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.



I mean it doesn't have to be that one is necessarily a genius (political genius if you like) just because you think differently from the rest of the population and you may want to make some kind of "revolution." Assuming the writer is trying to establish the power of individuality over the majority, there is nothing *genius* about it - it has been said so many times that power is derived from the consent of the governed, "Government derives power only from the consent of the governed"     

The Declaration of Independence has it that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me it looks like it's more of a "balls" issue, rather than a "genius" thing.



Indeed, the individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called "society," or the "nation," which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against "society," that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Emma Goldman maintained that individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an "individual." The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that "rugged individualism" which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as "education." That corrupt and perverse "individualism" is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is "the devil take the hindmost." This "rugged individualism" has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. "Rugged individualism" has meant all the "individualism" for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking "supermen." America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as "unAmerican" and evil in the name of that same individualism.

There was a time when the State was unknown. In his natural condition man existed without any State or organized government. People lived as families in small communities; They tilled the soil and practiced the arts and crafts. The individual, and later the family, was the unit of social life where each was free and the equal of his neighbor. Human society then was not a State but an association; a voluntary association for mutual protection and benefit. The elders and more experienced members were the guides and advisers of the people. They helped to manage the affairs of life, not to rule and dominate the individual.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002385.msg5395001#msg5395001

Title: "Consent" as "Necessity for Authority"
Post by: copain on April 01, 2012, 11:44:00 AM
Quotes from pitchman follow:

Quote

Political government and the State were a much later development, growing out of the desire of the stronger to take advantage of the weaker, of the few against the many. The State, ecclesiastical and secular, served to give an appearance of legality and right to the wrong done by the few to the many. That appearance of right was necessary the easier to rule the people, because no government can exist without the consent of the people, consent open, tacit or assumed. Constitutionalism and democracy are the modern forms of that alleged consent; the consent being inoculated and indoctrinated by what is called "education," at home, in the church, and in every other phase of life. That consent is the belief in authority, in the necessity for it. At its base is the doctrine that man is evil, vicious, and too incompetent to know what is good for him. On this all government and oppression is built. God and the State exist and are supported by this dogma. Yet the State is nothing but a name. It is an abstraction. Like other similar conceptions - nation, race, humanity - it has no organic reality. To call the State an organism shows a diseased tendency to make a fetish of words. The State is a term for the legislative and administrative machinery whereby certain business of the people is transacted, and badly so. There is nothing sacred, holy or mysterious about it. The State has no more conscience or moral mission than a commercial company for working a coal mine or running a railroad.

Life begins and ends with man, the individual. Without him there is no race, no humanity, no State. No, not even "society" is possible without man. It is the individual who lives, breathes and suffers. His development, his advance, has been a continuous struggle against the fetishes of his own creation and particularly so against the "State." It has always been the individual, the man of strong mind and will to liberty, who paved the way for every human advance, for every step toward a freer and better world; in science, philosophy and art, as well as in industry, whose genius rose to the heights, conceiving the "impossible," visualizing its realization and imbuing others with his enthusiasm to work and strive for it. Socially speaking, it was always the prophet, the seer, the idealist, who dreamed of a world more to his heart's desire and who served as the beacon light on the road to greater achievement.

Our political and social scheme cannot afford to tolerate the individual and his constant quest for innovation. In "self-defense" the State therefore suppresses, persecutes, punishes and even deprives the individual of life. It is aided in this by every institution that stands for the preservation of the existing order. It resorts to every form of violence and force, and its efforts are supported by the "moral indignation" of the majority against the heretic, the social dissenter and the political rebel - the majority for centuries drilled in State worship, trained in discipline and obedience and subdued by the awe of authority in the home, the school, the church and the press. The strongest bulwark of authority is uniformity; the least divergence from it is the greatest crime. The wholesale mechanization of modern life has increased uniformity a thousandfold. It is everywhere present, in habits, tastes, dress, thoughts and ideas. Its most concentrated dullness is "public opinion." Few have the courage to stand out against it. He who refuses to submit is at once labeled "queer," "different," and decried as a disturbing element in the comfortable stagnancy of modern life. Perhaps even more than constituted authority, it is social uniformity and sameness that harass the individual most. His very "uniqueness," "separateness" and "differentiation" make him an alien, not only in his native place, but even in his own home. Often more so than the foreign born who generally falls in with the established.

[...]

[...] For true liberty is not a mere scrap of paper called ''constitution,'' "legal right'' or "law." It is not an abstraction derived from the non-reality known as "the State." It is not the negative thing of being free from something, because with such freedom you may starve to death. Real freedom, true liberty is positive: it is freedom to something; it is the liberty to be, to do; in short, the liberty of actual and active opportunity. That sort of liberty is not a gift: it is the natural right of man, of every human being. It cannot be given: it cannot be conferred by any law or government. The need of it, the longing for it, is inherent in the individual. Disobedience to every form of coercion is the instinctive expression of it. Rebellion and revolution are the more or less conscious attempt to achieve it. Those manifestations, individual and social, are fundamentally expressions of the values of man. That those values may be nurtured, the community must realize that its greatest and most lasting asset is the unit - the individual.

Society exists for man, not man for society. The sole legitimate purpose of society is to serve the needs and advance the aspiration of the individual. Only by doing so can it justify its existence and be an aid to progress and culture. The political parties and men savagely scrambling for power will scorn me you as hopelessly out of tune with our time. Admit the charge. Find comfort in the assurance that their hysteria lacks enduring quality. Their hosanna is but of the hour. Man's yearning for liberation from all authority and power will never be soothed by their cracked song. Man's quest for freedom from every shackle is eternal. It must and will go on.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002385.msg5395004#msg5395004



The ruling classes [oppressors], as Lovdie's post has it, constantly take care that the oppressed remain ignorant of how the whole thing is artificially built, that their ideas and even basic "instincts" are worked upon, such that they won't be able to challenge the tenets upon which the system rests. This is where propaganda sets in. But poster pitchman shows us all too well where real power lies.
Title: Re: curves? i dont get it.
Post by: les protagonistes on April 01, 2012, 03:40:03 PM
Great post, copain - I will add a couple of other ones :)
Quote

Quote

This sounds a lot like Derrida (deconstruction). The face and candle image each are mutually interdependent. Neither can exist without the other. And a Buddhist would say, "Both the faces and the candle are Empty of inherent existence!" Hinduism, also, thousands of years ago proclaimed that "Truth is One - but the sages call it by different names." Thus Hindus tolerate a great variety of forms of worship and ways of attaining enlightenment.

(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2806/facesxw4.jpg)


Derrida said, "What I understand under the name deconstruction, there is no end, no beginning, and no after." He also said, "Since it takes the singularity of every context into account, Deconstruction is different from one context to another." Now, if deconstruction is different in different fields, then how is it different in different cultures? If there is neither a beginning nor an end of deconstruction, and if deconstruction is different from one context to the next -- then deconstruction must also have taken place in other cultures -- long before Jacques Derrida was ever born!

To name just three: China, India and Japan. China's great deconstructive mind belonged to an unconventional, anti-traditional Taoist named Chuang Tzu. In a manner similar to that of Jacques Derrida, he played with words, in order to undermine opposites. Both are aware of the problems that language and signification create, and both use a playful, unconventional style of writing to undermine and subvert conventional meanings -- to create works that blur the boundaries between philosophy and literature.

[...]

There was a time in Indian history, however, when groups of yogis became skeptical of all this. From among all the phallogocentric seekers of truth and meaning along the great brown river -- the ever-rolling and tranquil Ganges -- from among the waves and waves of turbaned priests and Hari Babas, and Ramjab Babas and Omkara Babas reciting unceasingly the eternal names of God, there emerged sects of naked, long-haired or semi-nude wandering ascetics. And as they walked along the sands of the holy Ganges they carried tridents or spears in their right hands and their limp penises would sway to and fro. They began to question everything Hindu. In fact, sometimes they would eat the flesh of dead men or would meditate atop a corpse. And instead of chanting Om, and instead of seeking for Brahman -- the essence of everything -- they began to question if anything has an essence -- if Brahmin even exists. They questioned everything -- using riddles. And from among this group of skeptics emerged a young prince, Siddartha Gotama, who was to become known as the Buddha. The Hindus had believed that the soul or Atma was identical with Brahman or God, and that is was eternal. But Buddha taught that all things are impermanent and that there is no soul.

(http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/5056/h9fmkh1dxrembjz7t2x8anrgw6.jpg)
The Cup and/or the Faces?

Buddha paved the way for Asia's greatest Indian philosopher, who was to be called "The Second Buddha." His name was Nagarjuna, and many modern scholars have found that his philosophy has much in common with Derrida's "deconstruction." He wrote about Emptiness, saying that anything that is Empty is devoid of self-essence. Or in Sanskrit what is called svabhava. The cup seems to exist all by itself, and not to be dependent on, or related to, anything else. But is this a drawing of a cup or of two faces? Or is it a drawing of both, or of neither? Perhaps it is just a two-dimensional series of lines! The important point is that we cannot see both the cup and faces simultaneously. Each image appears to possess svabhava or self-essence. Each image appears to be a self-sufficient, self-existent, discrete image. But they don't possess self-essence! There is an intimate, subtle relationship between the faces and the cup. One cannot exist without the other. They depend on each other.



I appreciate the contribution made the poster, but now "by train" would really be appreciated if s/he would come back here to tell us what exactly stands this about - because we may speculate a lot of things, but I doubt it we can get to the bottom of this all, without any help... if you know, what I mean :)