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 - Perversely
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90 
« on: January 08, 2005, 11:42:00 PM »
Since the great U-dub does string along applicants, why do you think they can still attract such a high caliber of student, number-wise that is. The U is much harder to get into, especially out of state, than any school of similar ranking.
I bet it's easier to get into Cornell than the U, if you're out of state.
i personally think that the "U dub" plays the waiting game. think about it...it just seems that although they're "suppose to" admit 70% washingtonians, the probability is that, if those with the #s that get into the U dub make it in, they're going somewhere else and they end up with all these people from out of state who applied late in the game, with big numbers....it's all about the numbers at the U Dub. i honestly don't think that it's easier because you're a resident because of how the cards will lay... i'm thoroughly convinced of that. remember, they can admit a larger number than what they actually enroll---the people who actually enroll is a different story. So Yeah, they probably admit 70% residents, but who actaully enrolls, if you look at any of their classes, I'm willing to bettcha at least 60% are NON-RESIDENTS. So, the key is, apply to the U dub late as a non-resident. Don't hold me to this. I'm sure I'm wrong. And whatever you do, don't sue me. I don't know my fingers from my toes.
i hope i'm wrong. i'm sure i'm wrong, but something tells me i'm not THAT way off.
« on: January 07, 2005, 05:02:45 PM »
Rizz - good info! Very interesting.
Slobe - you are correct in that scenario. If there were a wide range of LSAT takers in the same school, the correlation would be more obvious.
which leads us to Lizard's point, which even though it sounds crazy is actually quite true:
If the question of this thread is "Do High LSAT scores gauge success" then the answer is well...yeah. Because with a 170 you can get into Harvard, which as we all know, has the ability to place you in just about whatever legal career you desire provided you pass the bar. Conversely, if you score a 120 (if that's even possible) the Ivy's are out of your picture and you are confined to such schools like Thomas Cooley and other schools that may not be ABA accredited...thus leading you to not so much success as a lawyer. So if you think about it in that sense, then the LSAT does play a major part in your success.
If the question of this thread is "Do high LSAT scores mean that you will be successful in law school" then the answer over a preponderance of the evidence is NO. The reason being, filling in the correct bubbles on a standardized test has little to do with getting up every morning, going to class all day long, dealing with financial aid, fighting for a parking spot, studying case law until 1 am every single night, joining the Student Bar Association and other groups, making law review, getting A's on your legal research and writing papers, looking up cases in the library...etc. The LSAT has very little to do with those things that will contribute toward your success as you battle your way through law school day-in and day-out. Only you can control that because only you know how determined you will be to make it through the grind of law school. Unlike the LSAT which comes and goes, Law School is like running a marathon; you have to keep a strong steady pace taking special care not to fall behind and also not to burn yourself out. The LSAT cannot predict that.
There is obviously some benefit from being a quick thinker when it comes to the exams, but law school is not so much about rewarding quick thinking as it is about rewarding quality thinking.
But don't get me wrong, the LSAT does have some relevance to what you will see in Law School. In particular, the logic problems that asked you to find the "point at issue" that usually gave you quotes from two poeple arguing about something. Bob says this, Jane says that, what is the point at issue? If you were able to do well on those problems then you should do well at case briefing. Case briefing as a law student can take anywhere from 2 or 3 hours per case, or as little as 10 to 15 minutes. It all depends on how fast you can spot the issue.
Also, the Reading Comp. sections in general are helpful because as a law student you are going to read pages upon pages upon pages, and if you take the time to read every single little word then you will never get through it all. If you treat it like you probably did on the Reading Comp. section of the LSAT then you should be able to speed read or "skim" through large amounts of text and still pull out the general theme, tone, argument, etc. that are crucial to your analysis.
You are kidding me right? I have two things to say to you: JIM CROW.
You're lucky and mostly, you are probably very bright, but if you really think about it, of course, if you score high you're getting into the best of schools. And, of course, if you score low you won't. But have you ever given any real deep thought into how or why some people get those scores? A type of intellgence has something to do with it, but when it comes down to skill set: Reading, Writing, & Researching & a LOT of it, how can you possibly make a correlation when you're talking about a timed 3-hour test that is formulated by statisticans?
Example: If you take someone from let's say Harvard who has been educated at the best of secondary schools, and who has received the best of college training against someone who hasn't, what do you think the results will be on the wonderful LSAT you've just praised?
If you've been told all your life that you're "better", then you will be.
Just something to ponder. I provide no real answers, just playing the devil's advocate here.
« on: January 07, 2005, 04:50:15 PM »
It's all they have--doesn't necessary mean it's THE BEST indicator. Until there's a study, I remain extremely skeptical.
Honestly, If you ask me: It's really about putting money in LSAC & LSDAS pockets, giving the schools something solid to compete with, and keeping the "undesireables" out of top schools.
From my stats class, I was told that an excellent correlation is something around 99.9% or higher-- 39% correlation is horseshit. I don't know about you guys, but would you take a pregnancy test that was 39% accurate?
I challenge LSAC & LSDAS to prove otherwise. Just because we've used something for a long time, it doesn't mean that it's the perfect thing to use or even the best thing to use.
Mostly, I challenge all law schools to say, we want a better indicator! That, of course, would take any one school out of the "game" and I doubt that would ever happen. But if they collaborated, hummmm, I wonder what amazing things can happen?
« on: January 07, 2005, 01:22:41 AM »
Up 1.9% for December, but still down 1.2% overall (due to the huge dip in October administrations). Hopefully, it translates into a decrease in applicants.
Did you see the big increases in 2001 and 2002? Wow. Looking at this is almost like looking at how well the economy is for that year...The less people who apply, the more likely the economy is on an upward turn. In 2001 and 2002 so much happend to make people want to go back to school in those years.
There was a significant # of people who took the June LSAT...I wonder if all those early admits I've read here are the result of that. Something tells me February will end really low.
Interesting. Well see...
« on: January 05, 2005, 07:52:47 PM »
I'm sure you know this, but that is just a randam car at a dealership in Newport Beach. I would get shot for driving that in my neighborhood.
okay...but when someone has a sign above a plant that says, "my plant", most people will assume it means that it's that person's plant. do you realize you have a sign under the car that reads, "My Car"? Just out of curiosity....when you graduate from law school is this the type of car you will drive?
« on: January 05, 2005, 07:38:59 PM »
I think Mr. Connerly believes in more of a long term, idealistic solution to racial problems i.e. colorblind society, a president who doesn't have to cite minorities to appear diverse etc.
That's just the problem -- Connerly wants to put the cart before the horse, in a manner of speaking. He thinks if you just shut your eyes and pretend that everybody has the same opportunities and that there is no difference in the experiences of white people and the experiences of people of color, then it will somehow be so.
I've heard a supporter of his tell me that the reason interracial marriage is accepted today is that there was never any push for interracial marriage and people just sat back and let national opinion change, and that's why today interracial marriage is like any other marriage. I had to remind him that national opinion changed (and only partially) only *after* the Supreme Court stepped in and banned anti-miscegenation laws. Public opinion and oppression doesn't change by itself.
Well stated!!! I want you on my side of the bench! Things don't change by themselves. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be so...think and give a part of yourselves folks. love your fellow man. it's all about compassion and respecting the fact that not all are created equally, and race has something, but not everything to do with it.
perversely yours again,
« on: January 05, 2005, 07:27:01 PM »
psr, by the way: nice ride.
« on: January 05, 2005, 07:10:57 PM »
Do districts actually bus still? LA used to because it had to. They would take kids from the Inner City and bus them to the valley. On most days they were on the bus for at least three hours. The kids hated it. Bussing is not a fix because it creates animosity. The kids whose friends were bussed to the poor school are going to be a wee bit peeved at the poor kids who are bussed into that school. It also makes the poor kids feel inadequate. I went to four high schools and they were all very different. The first high school I went to was about 6% white, 60% Hispanic, and 20% Asian. There were other bits and pieces also. There was some discrimination toward the white kids there, but most groups were groups of different races. The second school I went to was about 30% for each of the aforementioned groups. There wasn't much discrimination at all, and almost every group was integrated. The last two schools I went to were about 60% white. One was 20% black, and one was 20% Hispanic. These schools had a lot of desegragation. I believe that it was because they also had huge economic differences. There were some really rich people and some really poor people. The first two schools I went to had almost only poor people. The rich people didn't show that they were rich. The last schools seemed to have forced integration. My point is that I think forced integration does not work because it alienates people and causes hate. Integration only really works if it is natural.
my point is this psr: the fact that people (regardless of race) are not mixing BECAUSE of education--education from the very beginning--is the problem. A temporary solution (not a band aid, like something that should be taken off and disgarded) is to stop the insanity. allow those who are capable of succeeding in law school that come from disadvantaged environments into decent schools, so that they can have decent jobs, live in decent areas and hopefully so that they can raise their children in a way that mainstream has raised their children. a better life for the next generation--it's what we all want (And I'm not even a parent, yet!) to give up and in essence "kill" an entire society of people is very hitler-like.
As an addendum to your rant: when do children know what's in their best interest? Right...when they are no longer children. please tell me you're not advocating for children's rights as an attorney.
I have no idea what you're talking about...(and, i'm paraphrasing) kids hate being bused, and if it's forced, therefore we shouldn't do it anymore...you're from the south, right?
you have lived in a bubble-like manner that i hope you will see that not everyone has lived in....
« on: January 05, 2005, 06:09:51 PM »
Most people will not argue against the fact that racial lines follow close suit with SES lines but I guess some people wonder whether or not the best way to tackle the problem is programs like race-based AA. Some people have a hard time following that if a student with an underpriviledged upbringing uses the benefit of AA to help him get into UG why does he need it to get into grad school. In their eyes he's had time to "catch up".
Advocates respond by saying that a lifetime of poor schooling cannot be fixed in 4 short years. Then is three more years of law school really going to help and if not at what point is it considered "fair" or "even". There isn't a defined point, its arbitrary, and thats why racial preferencing of any kind (IMHO) is a cheap bandaid fix to a bigger problem that is in need of better solutions.
ON this point Arbiter, I agree with you--people have a hard time understanding that an underpriviledged status does not equate AA. My problem with your other statement is this: catching up in regards to standarized tests is virtually impossible (it's like learning a new way of thinking & learning all over again--all 18 or 20 or even 30 something odd years of relearning--impossible. catching up in regards to having the better work experience (in MOST cases) is impossible. (a top consulting firm isn't going to hire someone who graduated from minority university R Us.) And mostly, catching up in regards to better grades is definitely impossible when in the grand sceme of things a lot of students that come from underprivilege backgrounds had children when they were 16, 17, or had to care for a dying family member or had to support their family WHILE they were an undergrad. There was no school life, time dedicated soely for purposes of doing well in school. The "haves" have a great advantage...they can do whatever they want, hate whomever they want and if they don't get caught, it's not illegal. (i'm exaggerating here, but i hope i haven't totally lost you.)
it's NOT A CHEAP FIX. WHY? because a student that is underprilege that obtains acceptance into a decent school, the generation that he/she raises will have the opportunity to grow up in a less disadvantaged environment...hopefully, i do pray that hopefully, most will see that it's not a band-aid, but a temporary solution to a rather complicated racially & class driven problem this country has.
And i can't stress it more--i don't think AA in admission should be based solely on race. it should be based on the person's apptitude to study law (such as writing ability, work experience, and drive), and it should be based on mostly, a person's inability to cross over that stastical fence because of their upbringing.
brown v. the board of education failed. it failed because although there's busing, there are catholic schools or private schools. it failed because busing now means taking an African-American from a underprileged, mostly minority school and sending them to another one or middle-class students to another middle-class school. the haves are sitting on top of a hill in far, far faraway land--too far to bus. i'm sure there are some cities like Boston, for example that bus students from "underprivileged" areas to "non-underprivilged schools" because the roads that divide the classes are narrow, however, when it comes down to it, look at how well those students perform because they are culturally mixing!!! a success story, but in cities like Boston or New York where race is something on a field or something you're doing to run for a train or for an election, i can see it as a success story and in places like boston and ny, brown v. board of education prevailed and worked and you have more mixed races, more people living in harmony, more people doing REALLY well on standardized test, and less of a disparity between races, cultures, and classes.
any questions? boy this is fun, but i really need to get back to work.
« on: January 05, 2005, 02:34:20 PM »
i sat by and have read until now...what if, just what if minorities (all those historically who have not been enslaved or killed or tortured)are now the majorities. i think the real issue is not about "minority" status. it's about the haves and the have nots. the elites who want to remain the elites.
this is scary, but imagine this for one second: what if you were the minority. i know, i know what you are thinking...you're thinking that you'd study and prove the world wrong, right? Wrong. What if you went to some rural high school where the teachers barely knew the English language themselves because they went to the very secondary school you were sitting in...Imagine yourself going to some community college because you shouldn't really have graduated high school, and then imagine yourself transferring to a college that was barely recognized as a university. You would have overcome, right? Wrong. Why you ask, because everyone around you is a minority, everyone received the same or mostly lower level of training/education. And imagine yourself stuck in this world, knowing that if you were the majority, with adequate schooling, you would have fit the mold of the rest of the country....Did you know that less than .05% of those who have endured such a life actually are able to learn the same way that the majority of the country has learned?
it has nothing to do with "minority" status, but everything to do with those who simply don't wish to recognize that not everyone is the same. it's easy to sit on a high horse and not look below...not for me.
for example: we trade with countries that, for all intensive purposes still use slave labor. not fair right? we're not playing on an even playing field right? how can americans have a manufacturing base (the backbone of any industrialized, first-world country) when they're competing with slave labor & cheap commodities. WEll, same thing. Minorities just want to play in the same field. The only way this is possible is through social awareness. if you say minority status is hocus pocus, you're ignorant. if you believe, truly believe that this country still has a long way to go, and people like the republican African-American who refuses to see that not all African-Americans are created equal, then you're on the right American road to what we're going to advocate for others: Freedom and a right to be treated equally!
All those that agree with that article, you have a right to feel the way you do, however, whatever you do, don't ever advocate for a minority, if and when you ever become an attorney. It's hard to advocate for something or someone you don't believe in...
the article is clearly insane & i hope, and i truly hope it was written for pure entertainment, as i've been thoroughly amused by it.
i guess, what i'm ultimately trying to say that the word "minority" should be defined as anyone (any race) that have not been able to obtain the best or even adequate secondary and college education. the word "minority" should be synonymous with the words "have not".
Pages: 1 ... 86 87 88 89 90