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 - gzl
« on: August 23, 2009, 11:20:33 PM »
There isn't going to be a substantial difference in job prospects from a school like Hastings vs. Santa Clara. Neither is going to place that many grads from each class in big firms or any kind of job that is very competitive to get. The only difference in placement will be among the very top students, like those in the top 10-15% of the class. What I'm saying is especially true given the state of the economy and big firm hiring for the foreseeable future.
PD jobs in California are very competitive to get. And they pay a lot more than $30K. California DAs and PDs are among the highest paid in the country.
If you are pondering taking a scholarship at Santa Clara, vs. paying CA resident tuition consider this: if the Santa Clara scholarship is tied to 1L performance, there is a very good chance you won't keep it after 1L. So when comparing debt load between the schools you should compare it as if you'll lose the scholarship after 1L.
Maybe is right in that you need ties to the area + top national school or a degree from a school in the same state in order to get a PD job. Exceptions exist, but they are rare.
This is a perfect example of why you need to look beyond rankings. Santa Clara has a very close-knit alumni community, and they more than look out for their own. Within silicon valley especially Santa Clara grads get placed in positions they have no "business" being in, if you're going by the school's ranking alone. If you're looking at firm law within northern california, S.C. isn't a bad choice. Not quite as good for PD work though, as that's not where their alumni connections are. Hastings, on the other hand, has a local reputation for graduating kick-a@@ trial attourneys, largely because of their VERY good moot court teams and training. Both can get you into positions that anyone looking at their raw rankings alone would be surprised by.
« on: August 16, 2009, 02:59:34 PM »
I read on another thread that Cooley used factors like the square footage of their library to come up with their rankings. I thought it was a bit of sarcasm. It wasn't. Some of the factors they consider (not sure how it's all weighted):
Total Volumes in Library
Total Titles in Library
Total Serial Subscriptions
Total of Professional Librarians
Library Hours per Week with Professional Staff
Total Library Hours per Week
Library Seating Capacity
Number of Networked Computers Available for Use by Students
Library Total Square Footage
I'm disappointed in Cooley's lack of inventiveness. If they considered the number of janitors employed in library clean up, or the total surface area of desk-top space available to use for study... or SOMETHING, I'm sure they could have placed themselves above Harvard and the like.
« on: July 08, 2009, 10:48:51 PM »
Yeah -- I'm not sure if that's the best system. Though I've started to feel more and more strongly that the focus on the best diagram leads people to think that the diagram does the work. That said, some approaches really suck! Nice work on the game . . .
Oh, just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that there was anything wrong with the diagram. I think it's mostly a matter of getting comfortable with *however* you choose to diagram that you can focus on solving the problems instead of wasting time on figuring the diagram out. I just find it interesting how different the approaches can be... I'm sure most would find my diagrams for logic games totally useless for them.
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:29:44 PM »
I'll take a stab at it.You've got 1,2,6 and 7 correct. Try again? If you get frustrated, someone posted an explanation to the game here: http://www.atlaslsat.com/forums/fortnightly-logic-game-9-jambalaya-t201.html
c a d c c e b e
I just looked at the link... I think I got them right, but I always find it interesting how *different* approaches can be that end up at the same place. That diagram would have had me pulling my hair out.
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:15:04 PM »
here's my crack at it... been too long methinks since I've done this.
« on: July 02, 2009, 03:21:34 PM »
Now, we're talking. That makes sense. Powerscore is wrong. All I was saying was that what Powerscore said was incompatible with LSAC's credited response. Now I know that I can't trust them 100%. This particular case does make me wonder, however, what their purpose in provide "The Logic Ladder" is. Does it normally shed some valuable insight, despite the fact that, in this particular situation, it was more harmful than helpful? All I know is that I got this questions wrong 100% because of what Powerscore had written.
Actually, no matter what people are trying to say with as much authority as they can muster in their voice, Powerscore isn't wrong in this case. "Most" can include conditions that entail "all." Like I said above "Most people are Mortal" is true even in a world where "All people are Mortal." The last sentence in this particular question limits it so as not to include the possibility of "all," however.
« on: July 02, 2009, 04:21:11 AM »
I am a science/math major and I like to visualize things. lets plot a simple graph based on the premise given. Lets us A to represent the artist population and W for Well-educated non-artist persons. Then suppose the degree of insightfulness is on a increasing scale from the left to the right.
So most artist are less insightful -> some of the A's (5) are NOT LESS THAN W's -> it overlaps the lower fence of the W's
Then the rest of the W's are greater than all the A's.
Now look at the graph: the 5 A's are NOT LESS THAN at least 5 of the W's -> "Some A's are NOT LESS THAN some W's.
This graph fits all the conditions spelled out. The LSAC answer is correct no matter what the numerical definition of "Most" or some is. The overlap can be 1% or 49%. Remember they inferred that at least some are NO LESS THAN, they didnt say "MORE THAN". You cannot prove that the overlap A's are LESS THAN, so they must be NOT LESS THAN.
But if you don't interpret the "rarely" of the last line to mean that there are some members in the set described, a graph showing NO overlap would also fit the conditions. The overlap can be 0%, too. "Most people are mortal" is a true statement, even if the statement "all people are mortal" is also true.
« on: July 02, 2009, 04:15:29 AM »
I could swear the credited response for the following question (from PrepTest 2) is wrong.
"There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues. Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist. Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great, indicate that artistic talen and political insight are rarely found together."
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
I did not find any answer particularly appealing, but I do feel like the credited response was clearly wrong. The answer is
"Some artists are no less politically insightful than some reasonably well-educated persons who are not artists."
The stimulus says, essentially, that most artists have less insightful political views than well-educated non-artists. However, most does not preclude the possibility of all (since the concept of all contains the concept of most), and for this reason, I don't see how we can infer that some artists are no less politically insightful than non artists. This is possible, but not necessarily the case.
Does anyone have any input on this?
I'd say you are right, if all you're looking at is "most." The last line, I think, is intended to limit the scope of "most" to "most but not all," with "rarely" meaning the set has *some* members.
« on: June 30, 2009, 10:50:44 PM »
Would you mind explaining how the Westlaw system works? Do you have to pay for each case or is it a subscription? Also, would taking a prepclass (such as law preview) before starting be worthwhile? Ive heard mixed things. Thanks so much.
I'm not sure who this was addressed to, but I'll give what little help I can. As for Westlaw, I think they have several subscription options (i saw a subscription rate pdf somewhere on http://west.thomson.com
, but can't find it now). My understanding is that it's expensive as an individual no matter what option you choose. It's included as part of your registration fees/tuition for most schools. As far as prepclasses for law school, I can't see where they would be much help. My guess is that they'll all come down to two or three pieces of actual, concrete advise: learn to outline your classes, brief every case, and learn IRAC. The first and last are good pieces of advise, the second depends on your time availability and learning style. I don't see paying time or money into such a class as being very useful, unless, maybe, you're a returning student who hasn't been involved in academics for some time and "getting comfortable" with things before entering the classroom might be psychologically helpful.
« on: June 29, 2009, 03:38:34 PM »
"The american dollar is loosing value by the minute, and trying to protect the ones in circulation against being further devalued isnt important? What is?"
Shoddy reasoning above. The value of the American dollar isn't lessened by defacing or even destroying individual bills. In fact, just the opposite argument could be made: every dollar bill destroyed is one less bill in circulation, making the remaining ones that much more valuable. It doesn't exactly work that way in reality, but in principle you have things reversed: destroying actual bills of currency is actually a selfless act whereby I lose a dollar of spendable currency to help increase the value of everyone else's currency by x trillionth of a percent. So help the economy, burn every "wheresgeorge" dollar you come across, out of respect. Kinda like a flag that's touched the ground.