Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - T. Durden

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 47
71
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT/IQ Conversion Table
« on: August 20, 2008, 03:11:44 PM »
It would be interesting to see whether there really is a correlation.  (And, no, I didn't read all 15 pages of responses, so forgive me for not addressing them.)

The chart was actually dead-on for me:  I took the WAIS-III IQ test & scored a 137.  When I took the LSAT, I'd only studied for it for two weeks (just to see what the format was; what to expect).  I did about 6 or 7 practice exams.  (Obviously, I wasn't seriously considering going to law school -- just finished a philosophy & law course & decided to see how I'd do.)  I also have ADHD, which I didn't know when I took the exam...and that's about the worst possible environment for someone w/ ADHD to take an exam in -- elbow-to-elbow in a crowded auditorium!  Crazy.

Regardless, on my practice exams, I was scoring consistent 169-171...right in there every time.  That's pretty close to what the original post says should be expected.  Not bad. 

(I only scored a 163 on the actual exam, but, like I said, that was before I even knew what ADHD was, and certainly before I knew better how to deal with the distractions.) 

I quickly perused this thread now that you revived it, and the conversion table is not accurate, nor is any comparison between IQ and LSAT score.

I too had both the WISC-III and Stanford-Binet IV/LM tests administered to me when I was much younger as part of my IEP and gifted education assessment. If there were any direct and reliable correlation between IQ and LSAT I should be scoring a 180 without any difficulty at all. Unfortunately, this is what makes this coversion table so suspect.

One could argue that there is slight overlap between the two measures. Certainly you wouldn't expect say, someone who is subaverage (in terms of IQ - numerically, lets say 90-100), or even average to score well on the LSAT regardless of preparation. By the same token, one would expect that those concentrated on the right distribution of the scale on the LSAT (numerically, lets say 160+) to have higher IQs - but not necessarily significantly higher than average. But this is the only relationship we could reasonably infer.

IQ tests are meant to be 'g loaded', that is, they test an array of abilities supposedly specific to intelligence - the ability to learn or adapt to novel or unfamiliar stimuli. The LSAT tests only a certain type of ability specific to success in first year law school (supposedly). The said relationship is what determines the validity of any standardized tests (such as the LSAT and IQ tests). Since both tests are meant to assess differing abilities they cannot be compared in numerical terms.

Not to mention that LSAT scores can be improved significantly through intensive preparation.

the discrepancy between the scores obtained and those predicted by your IQ test most likely lies with the IQ test that you took. there's a lot of confusion floating around these days with regards to IQ scores. i think that i just might vomit the next time i hear someone (i.e. jessica simpson, quentin tarantino, etc) say that they have a 160 IQ (or greater). there is only one "real" IQ test that has garned general acceptance and use amongst pyschologists. that test (the name escapes me) more or less places individuals on a 1-150 scale. an IQ of 140 is 1 in 1,000, 145 1 in 10,000, and an IQ of 150 is 1 in 1,000,000. other tests (which do not have anywhere near the same degree of use or acceptance but are popular in certain circles due to the inflated scale) use a 1 to 200 scale. the problem here is that most do not realize that there are different scales in play. so someone can announce an IQ of 160 (omg, a super genius!) which really, when scaled down to match the *only legitimate test* is something prob in the 125-132 range (if that). not to be a bubble popper, but this prob explains why your IQ would predict a guaranteed 180 but in actuality you're scoring (guessing here) in the 164-170 range.

72
A customer's refusal to display a receipt should not, in and of itself, provoke reasonable suspicion of shoplifting

given that the rule is uniform in application and designed specifically to prevent shoplifting (and is effective in this capacity), i'm guessing that 99% of shopkeepers and 95% of trial court judges would disagree with you.


73
it seems to me that the first issue is whether or not you have any rights in play here. given that you're on private property, your rights are limited beyond those which are granted by your status as "invitee." for example, the reference to "reasonable suspicion" strikes me as misguided as that is a constitutional standard applied to stop & frisk searches by the police. private security personnel are not required to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, at least not in the fashion that one would expect in the criminal procedure context. instead, your remedy for an inappropriate search (and corresponding detention, for that matter) is grounded in tort law here. given that there exists a "shopkeeper's" exception for such searches, you'd have to somehow show that the search was unwarranted, arbitrary, capricious, etc. as you refused to display your receipt upon request, i seriously doubt that you'd survive a MSJ.

you're on private property and as such you have very limited constitutional rights. you certainly don't have a constitutional right on private property to withhold a receipt should you so desire. instead, you impliedly assent to whatever conditions the store maintains by voluntarily enterting; any failure to conform brings you in under the shopkeeper's exception.

anyway, that's my best guess ;)

most states have statute that indicate when, and usually how, stores may detain customers.

julie seriously doubt any of them say failure produce receipt enough for detention.  and stores liable for improper detention.

the state statute in q may not expressly authorize the detention re receipts, but you still have to show that the search itself was unreasonable given the circumstances. given that the rule is uniform in its application, i don't see how you could show this. i realize that there is a general sense here that a consumer has some sort of fundamental privacy right with regards to the receipt, but that sense is, uh, wrong. this is the case of a private actor enacting rules on private property and as such your 4A rights don't apply to the conduct of private security. this is something that the consumer consents to when she enters the property.

when a private entity enters the realm the public utility or function, then it must guarantee constitutional liberties as a public actor would. as huge as walmart is, i doubt it has reached that level (yet, at least) ;)

but yeah, if there is a state statute that 1) is designed to prevent this sort of harm, and 2) protects this class of individuals, then you can show negligence per se with regards to the search.

74
it seems to me that the first issue is whether or not you have any rights in play here. given that you're on private property, your rights are limited beyond those which are granted by your status as "invitee." for example, the reference to "reasonable suspicion" strikes me as misguided as that is a constitutional standard applied to stop & frisk searches by the police. private security personnel are not required to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, at least not in the fashion that one would expect in the criminal procedure context. instead, your remedy for an inappropriate search (and corresponding detention, for that matter) is grounded in tort law here. given that there exists a "shopkeeper's" exception for such searches, you'd have to somehow show that the search was unwarranted, arbitrary, capricious, etc. as you refused to display your receipt upon request, i seriously doubt that you'd survive a MSJ.

you're on private property and as such you have very limited constitutional rights. you certainly don't have a constitutional right on private property to withhold a receipt should you so desire. instead, you impliedly assent to whatever conditions the store maintains by voluntarily enterting; any failure to conform brings you in under the shopkeeper's exception.

anyway, that's my best guess ;)

75
Transferring / Re: IP Electives or Bar related courses?
« on: August 10, 2008, 01:35:30 PM »
bar courses worth taking: crim pro, evidence, corporations, and trust & estates
not worth taking: secured trans & commercial paper, conflicts of laws, any sort of con law beyond what you're exposed to as a 1L, domestic relations, etc.


76
Transferring / Re: GW Transfer Registration
« on: August 10, 2008, 06:56:51 AM »
you absolutely have to take at least one class with schechter. you may not necessarily be interested in the subject matter, but he is one of gw's best.

77
Current Law Students / Re: Post bar exam doldrums
« on: August 05, 2008, 06:54:56 AM »
panicking as 1) i've just now come to the realization that i have put my apartment search on the backburner for far too long, and 2) am just now figuring out how expensive it really is to live in NYC (fed, state, "city" (!!!) taxes, broker fees (!!!), move-in fees, application fees, breathing fees, blood pumping fees, etc).

78
Current Law Students / Re: Top 10 Mormon Law Schools
« on: August 03, 2008, 06:55:49 PM »
56 eh? asu troll ;)

79
Current Law Students / Re: Why is Cooley Law so despised?
« on: August 03, 2008, 06:34:24 PM »
For all the people that think tier 4 schools are poo well let me tell you one thing. you are wrong in many ways. Well i agree on one thing you will get a better job right out of law school and yeah you will get in your big law working 80 hrs a week job, and honestly thats what i want to do and that is why i want to transfer to tier 1 school from cooley a tier 4.

However, take for example cooley i will assure one thing a person in the top of his class at cooley will eat any tier 1 graduate alive. cooley creates beasts, they take people that partied, know the street and the rough side of life and turn those party animals into legal beasts; and after all "A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer." (Robert Frost), they do not know about tiers or any thing as such and all your clients cares about is the money you are going to put in his pockets or simply getting him off clean.

No school makes you work as hard as cooley does and here we don't make law professors, legal analyst or cardozo's we make lawyers that win cases. That is why cooley always ranks on the top in mock trials and competitions. suprised huh!

I dare any of you tier 1,2 student take a cooley test; then you will justify why the attrition rates are high. let me know i'll email you one.

I'm on the top of my class in cooley after the first term and yes i'm transfering out but i know it your school is gonna be a walk in the park for me.

   

quite possibly the single most entertaining piece of flame ever ... (yes, ever)

80
Current Law Students / Re: Poll: How useful was BarBri?
« on: July 31, 2008, 06:13:52 PM »
it seemed as if a lot of the questions were written with the bar/bri materials in hand. in other words, i'd read a fact patten and have this reaction: "this is issue A with constituent rules A,B,C, all of which are mentioned in the prompt. oh great, they're askig about D, which i've never heard of before. awesome. educated guess time."

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 47