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 - john4040
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 47
« on: June 01, 2012, 01:30:21 AM »
Dooood. I have never seen such an example of speculation and assumption being mistaken for cleverness. I'll do the same thing- typical tea party induction. Inducing huge conclusions from minute irrelevant or even exception data. You base a conclusion on outliers. Or worse, generalizations that can't include all the data.Substance of your post:
Not everything in such an important decision as which law school to go is always based on linear rankings exclusively, and should not be. You do not know which schools rejected him. I saw a person apply to Harvard with a 148. She applied to a few T1s, a few T2s and a few T4s.
If anything he infers he has not heard back from CUNY.
CUNY is a different kind of school. It is outside the rankings. What I mean by that is the school admits people with 140s LSAT and can reject a person with a 160. They think differently than most schools.
Ah the student loan bubble. That's why you try to discourage people from law school. You don't want to help the OP. You want him/her swept aside as to not be part of the problem.
You're posting here to stop people from going to law school. Wow. Not selfish at all. Not apathetic. Not lame or weak, but practical, ehe?
What an f.in selfish dic.k.
1. I make assumptions from incomplete data;
2. Harvard could have rejected him / I don't know which schools rejected him / You saw a person apply to Harvard with a 148;
3. CUNY is a different kind of school - one "outside the rankings" (and, no doubt, the OP could be a special snowflake, too!!!);
4. I'm a "f.in selfish dic.k" because I don't want to fund some TTT flunkee's horrible life decisions.
#1 Welcome to the world of law school data, where schools refuse to give you the entire truth. In law, one would be able to infer that the data withheld was not in the law school's favor. It's called an adverse inference, look it up. Not sure why I wouldn't be entitled to draw such an inference here or why I'm not entitled to use the incomplete self-serving data that they DO publish to show how bad the school really is.
#2 You're right, Harvard could have rejected him and I don't know exactly which schools rejected him. But, I can use logic, probability and statistics to determine, generally, which schools he has applied to and which have rejected him. If the OP had the stats to get into Havard, chances are, CUNY wouldn't be his "top choice" and he wouldn't have applied to other T4s. Similarly, if he had the stats to barely squeak into CUNY, logic dictates that he applied to a few "reach" schools (CUNY may well be his "reach" school) and several schools ranked below CUNY. If he hasn't heard back from CUNY at this late stage in the game and he's been denied admission to 3 other schools, that tells me that he will, in all probability, be rejected by CUNY and any other higher-ranked schools that he irrationally chose to apply to. Thus, this leaves him with the possibility that he might be admitted to a school that is ranked lower than CUNY. As I have already pointed out, CUNY is a horrible investment at full price (*WARNING* I made another plausible inference, based on the facts given, that the OP will not be getting a scholarship to CUNY!!! Mindblowing and completely radical stuff... I know). The employment stats at lower ranked schools, generally, don't get any better. Hence, my conclusion: He's dodged a bullet by not being accepted to CUNY and other similarly-ranked schools. It's up to him to make a rational decision with respect to lower-ranked schools.
Lesson of the day: Probability and statistics are wonderful tools. Learn them. Embrace them. They are your friends. They will caution you not to make irrational decisions (though they can't stop you from making an irrational decision).
#3 Oh, I thought I covered this earlier...
It may be true that CUNY is king of sh1t mountain (i.e., the best out of a multitude of horrible schools). . . that CUNY has a good x or y program. . . None of these are serious answers, and all overlook the fact that employment prospects from CUNY are absolutey horrible.
Then, there's this: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/05/special-snowflake-syndrome-and-spirit.html
CUNY is not unique in purposely rejecting those with higher GPAs and LSATs. All law schools take exceptional admits that are below the LSAT and GPA minimums, and many lower-tier law schools reject those that apply with exceptionally high LSATs and GPAs (the latter is called "yield protection"). Your point seems to be that CUNY does not care about law rankings or that they are more willing than other schools to reject those with high LSATs. Not one shred of evidence was provided to support that claim (pot, meet kettle). Nevertheless, that position is asinine because it ignores the fact that CUNY is just one of many self-interested legal degree factories that touts the USN&WR rankings when they benefit them ("CUNY Law Among Top Ten Law Schools" "CUNY Law Has 6th Lowest Tuition Increase Among Law Schools"), but shuns them when they don't. If CUNY were able to attract a higher quality of student and thus, rise in the rankings, it would. Yet, it doesn't.
#4 - Insurance companies do what I am proposing all the time. It's a risk assessment based on (you guessed it) probability and statistics
. This is nothing novel. If someone is the special snowflake they claim to be, require them to hurdle certain intellectual, artistic, etc. requirements; demonstrate actual interest in the field; and make sure that there is some demand in that field. If the snowflake isn't competitive and/or there is no more demand for a particular job in the snowflake's desired field, don't subsidize their education. I don't care what you call me. It's good business. It works. Sorry that I don't advocate making irrational decisions based upon someone's warped sense of the "moral good".
#5 - Just because you're a pompous troll, I'll point out the fact that you completely side-stepped my last post. Answer the question: Where did I ever state that "he scratched out CUNY"? (or would that require you to "address data on [MY] rhetoric?")
I know.. I know... you read the whole thing and now want to put up another post that says "I only read 5% of what you wrote... but..." or that you don't want to "address data on [MY] rhetoric" . It's your way weaseling out of the stupid arguments you've made. I get it. I'd do the same thing if I spouted the tripe you do.
« on: May 31, 2012, 01:21:28 PM »
1) He never stated he scratched out CUNY. . .
Reading comprehension FAIL.
The title of the post says "3 denials 7 still out", meaning that the OP has been rejected from 3 schools and still has 7 apps pending.
He stated that he has heard nothing back from most schools that he applied to (probably the 7 referenced in the title), including CUNY, his top choice. He then asked whether he was completely hosed.
I never stated that "he scratched out CUNY". I stated that he was striking out, CUNY was his top choice, it's fair to assume that the other schools that weren't his top choice were ranked at or worse than CUNY, and that he's, therefore, fortunate not to get accepted to any of those schools. So, no, he's not completely hosed.
With regard to #2, maybe I do, maybe I don't. Either way, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.
#3 - The guy asked whether he was hosed. No, he's not. For the reasons I already gave.
#s 4-10 - Incredibly stupid. Hope you enjoy the student loan bubble that will soon plague the US. Government backed student loans are given to anyone and everyone without regard to the quality of school, the intended field of study, and the demand for graduates in that field.
« on: May 30, 2012, 10:33:02 AM »
Hmmm based on the %10 of your long post I bothered to read: You seem to be missing the point- Both of the OP and myself. Post all of the stats you want- none can be relevant unless they address data on YOUR rhetoric.
I've never advocated s/he should go to CUNY. Our little banter started when you said your sarcasm wasn't sarcasm. When you said circular reasoning (used as rhetoric) wasn't circular. Btw, all that can be fine- I'm not a CUNY fan, I know hardly anything about them. CUNY has nothing to do with it.
The OP's top choice is CUNY. That decision seems made. S/he never asked you if they should go to CUNY. Why are you trying so hard to discourage? The question is unrelated. CUNY is probably the best choice for the OP because of the low debt. Am I saying you're right? Partly. I would loosen the noose a little because CUNY is the best choice for some people and successful attorneys do come out of CUNY.
The ridiculous examples I used weren't enough. Wow- Congrats. We're arguing pointlessly and off topic. We have no debt. We're winners.
The guy stated that he was striking out and that CUNY was his top choice. If CUNY was his top choice, I think it's a safe assumption that the other schools were ranked near or below it. I simply stated that the law schools saved him from making a horrible decision. In other words, don't sweat getting rejected by these schools, you just dodged a bullet.
Good luck to you, OP. Not everyone is cut out for law school. Just don't become one of the piles of students whining about debt and bad job prospects and hoping that tax payers to bail you out.
« on: May 30, 2012, 02:35:48 AM »
Meh, use an obvious and simple equation to answer a problem that's so vague and pessimistic it comes off as sarcasm because it is circular in reasoning?
It wouldn't be without using the "congrats" followed by condemning prospects of no job, btw.
Congrats, you are going to prison for 20 years and have no debt. You're a winner.
Congrats, your leg fell off and you have no debt. You're a winner.
Instead of attacking my "equation" as "vague and pessimistic", why don't you post some stats up to show why OP should go to CUNY? While you're sitting there with your thumb up your a$$, postulating, allow me to show you some stats:
$112K cost of attendance, or $140K, assuming OP isn't a resident of NY [source http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=cuny-queens
18% are unemployed at graduation [source http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/clearinghouse/?school=cuny-queens&class=2010&show=ABA
19% are employed by the school, in short-term positions, upon graduation;
Not a single graduate of the class of 2010 reported employment by a firm with > 50 attorneys.
7.1% of this school's graduates were employed and reported a salary. The average salary of the reporters was $52,500
Given the above stats, if all graduates reported and all salaries were averaged up, I would wager a bet that the average salary would be no more than $30,000. Given that 18% are unemployed at graduation and another 19% are employed in "fake" temporary jobs funded by CUNY (meant to boost the employment stats of their graduates), it's not mere speculation to suggest that the OP has a 40% chance of being "unemployed" upon graduation or soon thereafter.
It may be true that CUNY is king of sh1t mountain (i.e., the best out of a multitude of horrible schools); that this guy has a 1% chance of making serious money; that CUNY has a good x or y program; that it feels great to know that you're a lawyer; or that OP has wanted to become a lawyer since childhood (probably negated by the fact that OP has never
actually spoken to a lawyer to make an informed decision on whether or not he/she would actually enjoy the practice of law). None of these are serious answers, and all overlook the fact that employment prospects from CUNY are absolutey horrible.
Going to an LSAT prep course and retaking the LSAT is incredibly cheap compared to taking $112 - 140K to the chin for, what statistics say, will yield you $30K. The LSAT can be learned - why not take some time, invest heavily up front, learn the LSAT, and get a full paid scholarship?
So far, your most helpful post to the OP is:
"I'll admit I don't know too much about CUNY. I've heard if you want to do public interest in NYC, that's the place to go.
The first sentence explains it all: You don't know wtf you're talking about, yet, you are willing to open your mouth and give advice. As to the second sentence, if you want to do public interest [or any legal job, for that matter,] in NYC, go to the best law school in NY. Otherwise, your colleagues at higher-ranked schools will typically pwn you for those positions and you risk becoming unemployed upon graduation.
« on: May 29, 2012, 10:38:25 AM »
The circular logic through me. Congrats on having no debt and no job. You're a winner. .
You're more of a winner with no debt and no job than one with mountains of debt and no job. It's not circular reasoning - the statistics support the conclusion.
« on: May 28, 2012, 05:03:07 PM »
« on: May 28, 2012, 04:27:04 AM »
CONGRATS! Given that your top choice is CUNY, this is the best thing that could have happened to you!
Think of it this way. Would you rather (1) no debt and no job; or (2) $100K debt and no job?
« on: May 25, 2012, 05:54:38 AM »
Then, don't come off as pushy or annoying. Just simply ask to speak with her, tell her that you've been accepted to several other schools, you're currently on the wait list at Chapman, but that Chapman is your first choice because [insert reasons here]. Tell her that, if she's willing, you would be interested in meeting with her to discuss your interest in the school.
If she doesn't have the time, speak to the dean of admissions.
« on: May 25, 2012, 04:22:12 AM »
My ideal school right now is Chapman, but I'm on the waitlist and probably won't hear back for a while. I fell in love with the school at the open house event. Given that it also only a quick drive from where a live, it is my ideal school and would love to attend. But, I know my odds of getting off that waitlist is not good. I'm not sure what to do.
Well, since you asked us not to tell you to retake the LSAT, here goes:
Why not call the school (the dean / chancellor, if possible) and tell them this? It couldn't hurt.
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:08:01 AM »
These are both awful schools that you shouldn't be considering for even one second if you don't have a full ride.
Pages: 1  3 4 5 6 7 ... 47