Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - Lindbergh

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 425
91
Okay, I don't know about diagramming this, but let me just try to explain it. 

We know there are two relevant requirements for meetings, under the principle:

1.  They should address only those issues relevant to most people attending.

2.  You shouldn't have to attend if no issues are relevant to you.

Choice C says that no issue relevant to Terry (RT) is relevant to most attendees (R[Most]):

RT -> NOT R(Most). 

Contrapositive:  R(Most) -> NOT RT. 

In other words, combining the two principles means Terry shouldn't have to attend -- Because 1) such meetings should only address issues relevant to most attendees, 2) you shouldn't have to attend if no issues are relevant to you, and 3) no issue relevant to most will be relevant to Terry (Contrapositive of the correct answer). 

So even if there are issues that are relevant to most attendees, justifying a meeting generally, they won't be relevant to Terry.  So he shouldn't have to attend.


Choice E is incorrect, because it's not enough that MOST issues discussed are not relevant to Terry -- he's only excused if NO issues discussed are relevant.

The only part you really need to diagram is the answer choice, which arguably needs to be contrapositived.

93
YOu've got mail

94
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Need Advice on tackling Assumption questions.
« on: September 21, 2008, 02:25:17 PM »
As noted, a sufficient assumption is something that will be enough to justify the conclusion when added to (any) existing premises.

However, keep in mind that a sufficient assumption MIGHT ALSO be a necessary assumption.  So don't exclude an answer choice simply because it plays both roles. 

On the other hand, the fact that something is ONLY a necessary assumption clearly precludes it from being the right answer for a SA question.

biconditionals are rare occurrences imo.

You're probably right, but I think it's questionable to apply a strategy of excluding answer choices simply because they play both roles, so I just wanted to point that out.

A quick example of such a biconditional:

Premise 1:  The movie costs $10.00. 

Conclusion: I can afford to go to the movie.

Answer Choice:  The author has $10.

Here, the answer choice is a necessary assumption, but it's also a sufficient assumption.

On the other hand, you should be aware that often the exam will throw you a curveball by listing both sufficient and necessary assumptions as answer choices, in an effort to mislead you, and this is probably what the other poster was getting at.  Usually, if they're asking for one type of assumption, you can quickly exclude the other type as red herrings.

But for purposes of conceptual understanding, it's good to understand that these assumptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Some facts may qualify as both necessary and sufficent conditions, and some assumptions may qualify as both necessary and sufficient assumptions.  However, they'll usually just be one or the other, and you certainly can't assume it's both just because it's one.  Many things are necessary without being sufficient, and many things are sufficient without being necessary. 

dude you are such a Pro at LSAT that I fear you might look like this guy.




im jk but really thanks for all your help.



Is that Michael Moore?

I'm the guy in my avatar photo -- clearly very fit and presentable!  ;)

95
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Need Advice on tackling Assumption questions.
« on: September 21, 2008, 01:37:41 PM »
As noted, a sufficient assumption is something that will be enough to justify the conclusion when added to (any) existing premises.

However, keep in mind that a sufficient assumption MIGHT ALSO be a necessary assumption.  So don't exclude an answer choice simply because it plays both roles. 

On the other hand, the fact that something is ONLY a necessary assumption clearly precludes it from being the right answer for a SA question.

biconditionals are rare occurrences imo.

You're probably right, but I think it's questionable to apply a strategy of excluding answer choices simply because they play both roles, so I just wanted to point that out.

A quick example of such a biconditional:

Premise 1:  The movie costs $10.00. 

Conclusion: I can afford to go to the movie.

Answer Choice:  The author has $10.

Here, the answer choice is a necessary assumption, but it's also a sufficient assumption.

On the other hand, you should be aware that often the exam will throw you a curveball by listing both sufficient and necessary assumptions as answer choices, in an effort to mislead you, and this is probably what the other poster was getting at.  Usually, if they're asking for one type of assumption, you can quickly exclude the other type as red herrings.

But for purposes of conceptual understanding, it's good to understand that these assumptions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Some facts may qualify as both necessary and sufficent conditions, and some assumptions may qualify as both necessary and sufficient assumptions.  However, they'll usually just be one or the other, and you certainly can't assume it's both just because it's one.  Many things are necessary without being sufficient, and many things are sufficient without being necessary. 

96
This all presumes he's going to law school for career reasons (as he appears to indicate), and not for social reasons.  If the latter, your concerns are clearly more on point.

I think it depends whether he wants the JD to advance his current career or to start a new career.  Obviously, someone with his financial experience will have a foot in the door with corporate litigation and finance groups, but there is age discrimination against older JDs, and he will need to network to counter that.

He's indicated that he's interested in SEC/Justice positions, so networking seems relatively unimportant here.  In my experience (and those of friends), he'd be best off applying for these positions from HLS.  For one thing, there will be a ton of other GULC applicants for such jobs. 

I certainly agree networking can be important in various contexts, and I agree there can be age discrimination against older JD's.  However, I think the best insurance against age discrimination is to attend the best school possible, and in this context, the government agencies will probably be less likely to discriminate, especially since he's also URM. 

97
To me, the idea of turning down HLS because it doesn't have as many people the same age seems insane.  This kind of social stuff may matter when you're fresh out of UG, but for anyone in their 30's, I doubt it will be much of a concern.  You'll be focused on studying anyway, and any lack of social distractions will probably be a positive.

Bottom line, graduating from HLS gives you advantages and security NU and GULC simply can't offer.  The only reason I can see for turning down the former for the latter is a full-ride scholarship.

That's just my opinion as well, though.

I think these decisions are very personal.  That said, yours seems to be a rather narrow view of law school.  I didn't come to law school to make friends, for sure, but having them around certainly picks up my spirit at times.  I don't know if I could do it without them around.  Moreover, networking is really important and may be much harder for someone  in the OP's position given the environment Naturally described. 

The OP is a mature, career-oriented male over 40.  For most such people, the primary concerns are generally career advancement, and that's why they go to grad school.  They're not usually looking for a social scene, and they're unlikely to need others for emotional support in the same way a recent undergrad might.  

Seeing law school as a means to career advancement is not narrow, it's realistic, and the fact the OP has indicated a desire to attend GULC ahead of higher ranked T14's (precisely because it may help achieve his specific career goals) indicates that this is his primary consideration.  (GULC is not generally known for its collegiality, after all.)  Most people go to law school to get a job, and this is especially true of older applicants.

I certainly agree that any applicant should focus on personal fit when choosing between peer schools, but HLS and GULC are not really peers.  HLS has placement advantages and security few other schools offer.

As far as networking goes, it can of course be very important when attending a school outside the first tier.  It's definitely vital when attending schools in the 3rd tier and below.  And one could even argue it might matter somewhat at a number of less-prestigious first-tier schools.  But it's basically irrelevant at a school like HLS, where you get your job based on the simple fact you attend HLS. (And you can always network professionally after graduation with other HLS grads closer in age - that's a much nicer network to be tapped into anyway, as they'll be more influential than students or recent grads.)

Ultimately, it seems somewhat unlikely the OP would care about the issue of age.  If he does, then he should certainly take it into consideration, but he should also be reminded that pretty much everyone at HLS gets the kind of job they want, while the same is not necessarily true at NU or GULC.  To the extent he's attending law school to get a specific job, this is presumably a major, and perhaps overriding consideration.  

(Note:  If he visits all 3 schools, hates HLS, and falls in love with NU or GULC, and is offered a full-ride, then I could certainly see the age thing as a tipping factor.  Outside of that, however, worrying about that wouldn't make much sense to me.)

I guess this reminds me of when my high school guidance counselor told me I should reconsider applying to Harvard undergrad because I was relatively underprivileged, and Harvard had a lot of rich kids.  To me, educational quality and subsequent opportunities are/were paramount, and I don't believe in letting concerns about "fitting in" get in the way of that.  However, again, that's just my opinion.  As noted, it really comes down to the OP's focus.  I'm assuming he's focused on getting kind of job he wants, but I could be wrong.

98
To me, the idea of turning down HLS because it doesn't have as many people the same age seems insane.  This kind of social stuff may matter when you're fresh out of UG, but for anyone in their 30's, I doubt it will be much of a concern.  .
Understood.  That is why I said....

...Notwithstanding what I've shared, I recognize that at this stage in your life you may not necessarily [eta: be] coming to law school to make friends, enjoy the social scene, connect with black students, etc.  Given your interests and background, you are bound to find a group of people who have done or aspire to do similar work.  That said, I would also hope that you find a law school where you don't feel like you're surrounded by a bunch of young whippersnappers (if such would bother you!).  In that regard, a school like Northwestern (or GULC as others have suggested given your background) may be a better fit.  Just my $0.02.

It really comes down to priorities and fit.  Besides, the OP is not "in his 30s" as you stated, but rather as the title of the post describes he is "over 40."  At that age, I would imagine that (a) the whole age issue could be so unimportant that his response mirrors ours above or (b) it is a cause of concern when choosing a program where he might be twice the age of say, 9.7 out of every 10 students he meets.  Law school is a three-year investment, and the age gap could give pause to someone over 40 and perhaps even approaching 50.

Bottom line is - The age thing may or may not factor in the balance if it were your decision or my decision to make, but since it's OP's decision to make (and since he's coming to this board for general advice anyway), I thought I'd bring it up given my impressions of the student body at my school.  I don't think it should be the sole determining factor (esp. b/c anyone who reads my posts knows how great I think HLS is), but I also don't believe in choosing Harvard b/c it's Harvard either. ymmv


I guess there's nothing wrong with giving the OP additional information, but I still think it would be insane for anyone to let this cause them to choose a lower T14 over HLS.  To me, the fact he's 40, rather than 30, only further confirms the fact he's not going to be concerned with social dynamics.  (And in all honesty, once you're over 30, you're going to stand out anyway.)

This all presumes he's going to law school for career reasons (as he appears to indicate), and not for social reasons.  If the latter, your concerns are clearly more on point.

99
Where should I go next fall? / Re: Will ED Really Give me a Bump
« on: September 21, 2008, 12:45:12 PM »
Supposedly, the problem with ED is that you CAN'T get a bump when you have it.

Seriously, it will help.  Schools are more likely to make offers when they're certain the offers will be accepted.

Can't say for sure about UC, but your logic makes sense.  Visit any school you ED first.

100
Reviews, Visits, and Rankings / Re: BAD EXPERIENCE WITH TEMPLE
« on: September 21, 2008, 12:40:58 PM »
Good call on the not giving "legal advice," but his "case" with Temple's financial aid office is pretty weak as well.

He had already decided to attend before the whole scholarship mishap. 
Quote
I got accepted to the school with no $ and had sent an email asking if they could re-consider. I got a message back saying there was nothing they could do and I resigned myself to that. I made up my mind about going there and having to borrow the max amount of loans for the 1st yr then I got my fin aid award letter in the mail teling me they were offering me 15,000 for the first year as a Law Faculty Scholarship.

The relevant issue is not whether he decided to attend before he got the scholarship offer.  The issue is whether the court believes he did.

Unless he formally declined the other offers before the scholarship offer, he could still potentially argue PE.  There's no way for the court or anyone else to read his mind regarding the ultimate decision unless he somehow made his intentions manifest.

For example, by posting them on an internet discussion board?

Yes, if he included his name, and the school somehow found those postings.  Both of which are unlikely.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 425