Law School Discussion

I definitely think Princeton would be, in a way, grandfathered in to the t14.  Most certainly the assumption on the part of many (enough) applicants, professors, professionals would be that Princeton would produce only a high caliber law school.  So, highly qualified a applicants would apply, they could also attract a strong faculty, firms would likely be interested.  Certainly, Princeton  would not be hanging around with Falwell's school simply because it is a newbie in the discipline.  Besides, it is often ranked in the top 3 (in law schools) in polls of the public; the aura of this ivy would encompass the law school.

I disagree whole-heartedly.  By admission, you're basing your opinion on an assumption, which is something that should never be done.  In any event, like any other law school, I'm sure it'd have to "prove itself" before USNWR puts it in the Top 14 in its silly, meaningless rating system. 

Ok. Upon recieving accreditation, people will be falling over themselves to rank PLS in the top 10.

How can you make such a statement? You have no way of knowing the applicants' numbers or anything else that would contribute to the school's "ranking."  Oh, and what ranking are you referring to? USN&WR?  That's a magazine that rates schools....surely you don't give much credence to it.  I would hope not, and that instead you rely upon the opinions of students and alum from the various schools.

When people say "intelligent" in this thread, they mean having the superior potential to become a lawyer, nothing more nothing less. 

Then that should be specified.

It's a rough gauge of your intelligence.  As a competitive law school applicant, if you had chosen not to practice and improve your score, I would probably say you're an idiot.

The reason it's justifiable as a tool for admissions is that experience/evidence has shown that LSAT score is a more reliable indicator of law school performance than undergraduate GPA.

You state in your post that the LSAT is a "rough gauge of your intelligence."  Without trying to be argumentative at all, I wonder....if you had scored lower, say in the 130's or 140's, would you be saying the same thing? 

Second, what evidence do you have to support your claim?  The LSAT tests three spheres of thinking and reasoning, and is really just a really good gauge of one's ability to take a standardized test in a pressure-cooker evironment.

Basically, I really don't agree with you....one's LSAT score is completely and totally unrelated to one's intelligence or their ability to succed in law school.

Quote from: JonR0921 on December 14, 2004, 06:40:09 PM

The prosecution offered no hard, conclusive evidence that Peterson killed Laci and Conner; indeed, they admitted that definitive evidence didn't exist!! I don't think they presented a strong enough case for a conviction, and certainly think the death penalty was thr wrong punishment in this case.

you probably were more focused on the evidence than i was. i just saw what was on the television or my mom's people magazine. what other possibility were you more convinced of? a friend of the family? a vagabond? would the defense have validity in saying that the location where the bodies were found was just coincidence?

That's the thing...the jury wasn't responsible for seeking out other possibilities...they were there to render a verdict based on the available evidence....none of which was conclusive.