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 - nekko

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29
Law School Admissions / Re: The predictbility of LSAT
« on: March 29, 2005, 06:30:26 PM »
(how often is law of lightning speed anyway?)
Well I think it does matter but how much it matters is more dependent on the context. If you were an attorney working on Bush v. Gore lightning speed was critical. They were writing briefs at an unbelievable pace. But on a more normal level if say you're a corporate lawyer doing doc review speed is pretty important. You could have 20-100 boxes worth of documents that you have to go through and make a judgment on (privileged? if so, why? Responsive? etc.). You're getting billed by the hour and clients only like to pay so much for attorneys to review documents so there's a lot of pressure to move quickly such that the time pressure you have is similar to the time pressures of the LSAT. On a level not restricted to corp. attys. are typical high level lawyers where they don't do a lot of the hands on research and analysis but instead are focused on big picture strategy and argumentation. These people have to absorb huge amounts of info in very short amounts of time and be able to manipulate that info coherently. On a more junior level you could look at things like depositions where attys have very limited amounts of time to prepare for a deposition, they get tons of info they get a few days before, have to absorb it and be ready to ask the rights questions, interpret answers to perhaps create unexpected questions in a compressed period of time.

Law School Admissions / Re: The predictbility of LSAT
« on: March 29, 2005, 04:50:26 PM »
What they did emphasize however, was an individual's ability to write.  Perhaps that should be the new direction for admissions tests for law school, instead of a sprint to finish as many MC questions as possible.   
True but you have to balance this within certain constraints. Is a take home final reflective or is that still too little time. Should law school finals be large papers submitted at the end of the semester with every class being more like a seminar? Also despite everything the current system has done a remarkably good job at identifying talent (i.e. those who currently do well on law school exams are in fact typically those who are the best and the brightest).

Law is a very profound discipline which demands deep thinking.
Yes and no. It can be a profound discipline which demands deep thinking but it can also be one in which large amounts of information needs to be processed quickly with the result that a lot of information is processed superficially.

Secondly, I think the best law school admission tests should model the real attorney's work, such as to be given 2 or at most 3 "cases" to analyze and argue,
Aside from the practical issues involved is this really reflective of real attorney's work and even if it is would it be a useful measure to analyze applicants. I think the answer to both is no. No to the former because legal argument is so tied to precedent so reading a case and just arguing it wouldn't really reflect what a lawyer does because a lawyer has to investigate the 20 cases that are like/sort of like that case and then from their make distinctions to argue one side or the other. No to the latter because what you're supposed to be learning in law school in large part is legal analysis.

And the most exciting thing i can think of to be the best indicator of law school candidate is to have instant oral speech contests during the test. For instance, we are given a topic to argue with a partner testee, in this way, we can see the quickness and creativity and logical reasoning ability and the eloquency of lawyers.
This would be interesting, to some extent fun and probably a poor test if what we're trying to do is make testing closer to real lawyer tasks. Many, many attorneys essentially require no public speaking abilities at all or any type of real oral advocacy aside from the type of argumentation you might do at a dinner table.

Law School Admissions / Re: Is 3-yr degree a pro or con?
« on: March 25, 2005, 02:36:42 PM »
I don't think it will help or hinder you. I doubt that graduating in 3 years is so out of the norm that it would be a really big factor. Now if you're graduating in 3 years and you started college when you were 15-16 then it's probably a different story.

i took a cab.  it took about 25-30 minutes and was $45!! yikes!
Why did you take a cab instead of the selectride shuttle/lincoln towncar?

I too am among those who thought the preview weekend was great and a number of people that I met seemed to feel the same way.

I'm not sure if there was anything I didn't like. No, wait, they could have had more signs or something like "Preview weekend students this way" type signs that would have made finding my way around a bit easier but maybe it bothered me since I'm particular clueless with directions.

so use care but share.
That's the thing though. The more aggressive schools become in collecting information the more "care" one has to use and thus the more vague, general a poster has to be. Of course the more vague, general a poster is the less credible they are since it's hard to believe someone who's every post describes something they heard from someone or saw someone else do or whatever else someone might say to make someone think it wasn't the specific poster who had heard something, done something, saw something, etc. which would lead to them being identified.

If I were to receive poor service from a school, then I would not have a problem saying it publicly. I think that if I were to speak the truth in a polite manner, then my comments would be above reproach. If I were to use faulty logical or inflammatory language, and it caused schools to treat me in a negative way, then I see no problem with that.
Even if you would it's obvious that it would deter others from even saying negative things politely. Just in the same way many people wouldn't say negative things about their boss (even in a polite fashion) if their boss was right there listening. That type of deterrence would significantly decrease the utility of the message board.

Looking at your story I think we're on two different tracks. What is good for law schools is not necessarilly good for applicants. It may very well be good for law schools to track people down, collect whatever information they can find and use that information accordingly. That however is not good for law school applicants. Something can be well within someone's rights yet still have an overall negative effect. Applicants benefit by being able to freely discuss law schools and the general admissions process.

don't think the collection of the information creates the bad consequences. I think the original people saying things in a negative way creates the "bad" consequences. It is likely that the collection amplifies the consequences, but it did not originate them.
But what is a negative way? Do you know? Does anyone but the admissions people themselves know? Have you ever had a frustrating experience with a bureaucracy but rather than argue with them simply politely walk away? If you have ever done this often times it's because you know you aren't getting anywhere and the people just aren't listening and you can only make things worse by pressing the issue. How is someone supposed to express that type of situation in a non-negative way when the very same person they had to walk away from is the person who's going to be reading their message? Bending over backwards so as not to offend admissions people creates a default setting of less information for other applicants and less honest information. Maybe an admissions person was extremely rude. Would you expect someone to say that when they knew that very same person would not only be reading the message but know specifically who was saying it?

Increasing consequences has a distinctly negative effective on communication. I don't want people to be careful about what they say. If anything someone might say could have extremely negative consequences what are people going to say except whatever they think is politicall correct? This board and those like it are about helping applicants.

Someone else pointed out that we want to be professionals, so we should act in a professional manner.
But this isn't a professional setting. If you go to an alcoholics anonymous meeting (which is quasi-public) and complain about your job and say how you think your boss is an idiot I think a company would be absolutely wrong to fire you for being, "unprofessional" even though in other settings making such statements would certainly fall under "unprofessional" behavior and a justifiably firing offense.

So what was the counter-argument to Hispanic being more cultural than racial? Are we not in agreement that there are white hispanics? Assuming we are in agreement what differentiates someone born white but is hispanic from someone who is white and adopted into a hispanic family?

1) The issue (at least in part) is collection. Even if they never use it for "bad" purposes that's not the end of the story. Simply collecting the information has a negative effect by stifiling open communication which aside from general philosophical ramifications would have the more specific effect of decreasing the utility of the message boards for useful information. If everyone is afraid to speak negatively about a school because they all know adcomms are tracking them down who's going to do it? If no one does it why bother going to the message boards when no one is going to give you an honest answer? If someone calls an admissions office and gets horrible service who's going to complain about it on the boards (and thereby warn their fellow applicants) when they know that same admissions office is going to read it and then try and trace them?

2) The internet is ambiguosly public. If an actor in a movie does a speech saying XY and Z do you take that speech as a reflection of their views? No. Now if that same actor sends a letter to the editor with his name on it expressing XY and Z view would you take that as a reflection of their views? Yes. Posting on the internet may not be the same as the former but it's also certainly not the same as the latter.  

I think it's being a bit harsh saying he lied. There are "white" hispanics whereas there aren't "white" black/asians/etc. So hispanic as a category I think has a much stronger cultural rather than simply racial component which makes someone being adopted/raised in a Hispanic culture could make a reasonable case that they are in fact hispanic. If someone white who's born to a hispanic family can be classified as hispanic I'm not sure why it's totally unacceptable for someone adopted into a hispanic family be accorded a similar status. There's something of a gray area and something certainly worthy of an addendum but definitely not in my opinion a black/white, "He Lied" issue.

I think it's a good idea for admissions people to read various boards because if they're to do their job properly they have to know what the applicant pool is saying. If people are all over message boards complaining how X at Y Law School is terrible it's something they can address and or be ready to explain. It's important to know what perceptions people have so they can either dispell them or use them as an impetus for change.

A bit more of a gray area is matching up specific users. In this situation I think it's more of a case by case issue. If someone is going on boards trying to discover how or explaining how to defraud a particular school I don't think it's wrong for a school to check their files and do some investigating.

Where I have an issue is where they would do things like look at LSN/LSD/etc. and make a judgment on someone based on message board postings. It's one thing if someone is writing a constant stream of racist/anti-semitic/similar type statements but I have strong concerns about other types of speech negatively affecting someone's admissions. Sure it's a public forum but part of the utility of forum is that people can express themselves without real backlash. Law school adcomms making extensive use of message boards to weed out candidates would have an extremely chilling effect. Who's going to say Law School X's festivities were terrible if they know an adcomm is going to try and dig up their file? Who would post honestly about their impressions of various schools if those same schools are going to be using it against them? Why would someone post their real numbers if they knew people were going to use it to track down their identity and possibly hurt them in admissions? These are all the types of things that make the message boards useful in the first place. If people cease to be open and honest it basically puts us all back to the days when the only info you had about various schools, stats, etc. were from whatever small circle of people you knew.   

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 29