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 - nekko
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 
« on: July 15, 2004, 11:56:07 AM »
In my experience high standardized test scores (SAT/LSAT/Etc.) do correlate with intelligence in the way we normally mean it. In the sense of being very sharp intellectually but not necessarily having other traits which are necessary to be successful. In the people I have met generally (and I emphasize generally) speaking:
High Standardized test scores, high grades: Generally very smart and at least fairly hard working.
High Standardized test scores, average grades: Very smart but typically borderline lazy.
High Standardized test scores, low grades: Usually very smart but slackers.
Average Standardized test scores, High Grades: Usually of above average intelligence but not what we generally consider brilliant, yet typically hard working.
Average Standardized test scores, Average grades: Oddly usually difficult to call since they tend to be people who are "average" as you would expect or very smart (but not so smart that they can be exceptional without working).
Average Standardized test scores, Low grades: Usually average intelligence but not very hard working.
Low Standardized test scores, high grades:Generally not particularly smart but very hard working.
Low Standardized test scores, Average grades:Not generally very smart (though with all of these that doesn't mean dumb) and reasonably hard working but not exceptionally so.
Low Standardized test scores, low grades: Not generally very smart or hard working.
Once again these are all generalizations based on just my own experiences.
« on: July 15, 2004, 11:38:02 AM »
I believe i qualified my post with the term middle to upper middle class because being "rich" in america is something completely different than being "rich" in, say, Guatemala.
And believe it or not, wealth is always concentrated in the hands of a few, even in the States, meaning that even in war torn empoverished countries, there are those who hold most of the nation's wealth. true, most the "rich" ppl in asia stayed in asian, but many of those who immigrated to the US (at least those from east asia) came who were in a financial position to be classied as being at the very least middle-class once they settled in the US. As for those businesses established in lesser commercial areas, I'd say to finance a deli, it would require at minimum $100k? Like I said, they are not rich, but at least middle class.
Once again where do you get the notion that middle and upper middle class folks made up the bulk of the immigrants coming to America from Asia? What sort of resources is someone coming out of the PRC going to have say during the 1970's? Being middle class in 1970's Taiwan means having virtually nothing when arriving in America. As to $100k, actually the capital requirements are probably lower than that and also you're failing to understand a lot of the reasons why they're able to generate the money. African Americans and just about any other group if they pooled their resources could afford to buy small businesses in a lot of these communities. The fact is they don't for various reasons. A lot of asian immigrants (like many immigrant cultures from other areas) do in fact pool their money together. So it's not like one guy has $100k and is able to start up a business. It's more like several families combined have enough money to start up a business with the various families benefiting from that pool of resources in some sort of prescribed order. Also the most successful Asians are the ones who have been here the longest and in particular the Japanese, specifically the ones who either personally or were descended from those interned during WWII and lost everything during that time.
« on: July 14, 2004, 08:55:53 PM »
the model minority myth is exactly that - a myth. when the doors of immigration were swung open to asians in 1969, a flood of them came into this country, already armed college educations and bringing along their families' inheritance. so when you see many middle to upper middle class asians, its not that they "worked their way up", but that they were already in that economic situation to begin with. it should be pointed out that these immigrant families, many times, came from the elite class of their native countries. sending their 2nd generation kids to college was not a hope but expectation, hence the high rate of asian enrollment at top universities.
think about it - it costs money to open a subway, or a dry cleaners for that matter.
but as always, there are exceptions.
Where in the world do you get this information from??? Rich asians weren't flooding the US. Rich asians were for the most part staying put because rich Asians were well, rich and didn't need to go somewhere else to find opportunities unlike the vast majority who were in poverty. What inheritances were these rich asians getting? Let me tell you folks from Communist China weren't immigrating to America with vast sums of wealth, Taiwan was a developing country as was Korea. By your 1969 date the only really established Asian country from which rich asians would really be able to come from was Japan but even Japan is debateable as it was hardly rich at the time. As to money to buy cleaners, markets, etc. you've seen where these establishments (at least initially) are right? Those Korean markets were/are not started in areas where you need significant amounts of money to start them up.
« on: July 09, 2004, 07:28:18 PM »
Just one more comment about BigLaw hiring...it is the nature of BigLaw that only about 1 in 9 associates will make it to partner. So, the firms aren't really looking for candidates that display the qualities of maturity you (dta) alluded to in one of your previous posts. The firms really want smart kids that don't make a ton of mistakes and will do 70 hours of grunt-work a week and love it (never complain, etc.). Most BigLaw firms have reputations for being 'sweat-shops'...believe me, they've earned these reputations. They don't want to hire some thirty-year-old guy who knows better.
I don't think you're right to the extent that I don't think firms really care about age when hiring associates. Whether your thirty or twenty-five I don't think makes a difference to big firms since the attrition rates are so high anyway. A lot of the first years are going to be gone by year two or year three anyway so does it really make a difference whether the person is 25 or 40? I don't think so and at least have not seen it reflected. It seems intuitive that younger associates would be more willing to work longer hours but I've not seen this reflected in actual practice and considering most upper level associates and junior partners work hours at least as insane as first year associates it seems unlikely that they would think someone their own age couldn't hack the time. Sure most associates do tend to be younger but that's largely I think because most law students are younger, particularly at the top law schools.
« on: July 09, 2004, 01:34:52 PM »
I've heard that too, that law schools like people with some work experience. But quite frankly, I think its a bunch of crap.
I think to an extent you're right if you know what you want to do it doesn't make much sense making someone delay to supposedly get more perspective or whatever but at say the top schools the type of turnover and dissatisfaction among the top grads is probably fairly high (at least for a group of people coming out of a top school in their field). Perhaps it's just because I work at a big firm I see it more but such a huge number of associates burnout and get out of law completely or totally take a new direction in their legal practice that I can see a top school wanting people to have more experience. I think it might be a problem that's more acute at top schools than others since I think people from top schools are more likely to think they are meant for something better than what lower level associates usually do and also I think grads from top schools are more likely to work at big firms where turnover is especially high. But there just seems to be so many grads coming out of Yale, Harvard, etc. that come to the big firms and somehow don't realize that they're not going to be arguing in the Supreme Court in year 1 and don't fully comprehend what it means to have to bill the type of hours needed at a big firm. Also a lot just don't seem to be very good at the working side of law as opposed to the academic side. In other words they very bright (in some instances extremely bright) but they're just not very good at working with their staff, other associates or even partners. Not that this any of this applies to you (since you've worked for quite some time it appears) but I can see the argument a law school would make and see why it isn't simply a requirement created arbitrarily.
« on: July 07, 2004, 11:24:55 PM »
I took about 5 LSATs the final two weeks. 3 the week prior and 2 just before (Fri and Sat. with the LSAT on Monday).
« on: July 07, 2004, 11:11:35 PM »
Has anyone ever used the various admissions consultants/essay services like admissionsconsultants.com or accepted.com, essay edge, etc.? What has been your general experience with them?
« on: July 07, 2004, 11:08:25 PM »
I concur with the idea that overall reputation and location are more important. I don't know of law school specialization being a big factor or at least none of the antitrust lawyers I've worked with seem to have gone to schools with a particular antitrust specialization above and beyond the normal reputation of the school. University of Iowa has Herbert Hovenkamp. I personally wouldn't want to go to Iowa (although who knows maybe I'll apply) but he's a frequently quoted authority in antitrust briefs and cases. I think I've seen his publications quoted in every major antitrust brief I've seen.
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28