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 - hunterhogan

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15

First, I think it is totally cool to want to go to law school simply for the money. Also, as someone else pointed out, there are very few jobs in public interest, so most of us will not be working to "change the world" after we graduate.

I'd like to add something to the "mercenary" idea.

I was speaking with a friend - he's an attorney. We were discussing this topic and he brought something to my attention. He said after the time he spent in law school and his experience as an associate, you really start to think differently than you ever had in your life - and you analyze every argument in a "lawyerlike" manner. Thus, you begin to see the pros and cons of both sides of the argument, and it becomes less a moral issue and more of a legal argument battle of wits. So, it's not as if you sold your soul - unless you're defending genocide. There are always two (or more) sides to an issue. We just fail to comprehend the other side(s) in our everyday lives.

I believe that this process does happen. However, this is not necessarily the final stage.

Normal humans go through stages of moral development. I personally find Kohlberg's stages compelling. There is actually a stage called “Law and Order” that he believes most adults stay in. This stage is characterized by an orientation towards duty or obligation.

If you take an adult that is in this stage and teach him law, then you did not evolve or devolve him in terms of moral behavior.  Because the same group of laws can often be applied to come to mutually exclusive positions, the lawyer can use his new skills to destroy the framework of the “Law and Order” moral stage.

Let me pause for a moment and make some points. I do not personally believe that someone in stage 5 or 6 is somehow superior to someone in the “Law and Order” stage. So, please do not attack that. Also, I do not think that my above hypothetical lawyer is inferior to any other person. I merely think that this model explains the attitude described by Bahamut.


We tend to move to the next moral stage by learning from others. Since there are more people that do not think like lawyers, I think non-lawyers have more opportunities to advance to the stage beyond the “Law and Order” stage. On the other hand, I think the analytical and critical thinking skills that successful lawyers have would make it easier to process the information necessary to move to the next level.

Overall, I think law school has little impact on whether someone progress past the typical views of morality. Although, I do agree that most lawyers exist in a stage parallel to the typical “Law and Order” adults.

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.

Excellent example! I agree that allowing adcomms access to LSD/LSN will deter some people from posting some information there. I do not think that this explicitly public forum should be off limits to adcomms in any way though. So, I don't think they should be prohibited from collecting information.

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.

I am not 100% sure of the status of an AA meeting, so I am purposely going to generalize my response. If someone created a website and explicitly stated that only people that were in the process of applying could join, and that all parties were prohibited from sharing the information with non-members, then we would have an explictly private forum. If any adcomm found a way to collect information from this private location, then I would be very upset.

I totally agree that information that is expressed in a private forum is off-limits to the adcomms. However, LSD and LSN are extremely public.

So a black child adopted and raised by white parents should consider himself white? No way, your culture has nothing to do with your race, race is a biological distinction. Its stupid that schools give AA preference to certain races but thats the way it is and checking hispanic on a form when your race is white is an outright lie. Checking other would be fine as other can mean anything. Who you were raised by, economic factors, what country you came from, etc. are things for the PS/addendum not the biographical information box.

It is difficult to read the full text of long threads like these. Hispanic is not a race.,27952.0.html

Obviously, a major reason BigTex was accepted to law schools was because he can write.

Good luck next fall!

Law School Admissions / Re: The identity of school x!
« on: March 10, 2005, 06:34:57 PM »

Though I disagree with the collection itself being worthy of condemnation, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post and it's well said.

Thank you for the compliment. I understand your points better now.

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?

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.

Let's look at 2 Internet users, Bob and Carl. The City Council is going to hire one of them to put a new stop sign on Main St. Bob posts on multiple discussion boards that he thinks the City Council should pick him and not pick Carl and tries to explain why. Carl posts on the same boards and says that the same council is full of idiots and that everyone else should yell at the council next time they see them. Both Bob and Carl are nice to the City Council in person.

Do you think the behavior towards the Bob and Carl is going to be different? I do. Do you think it is ok if they are different? I do.

I 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.

Someone else pointed out that we want to be professionals, so we should act in a professional manner.

(This is somewhat redundant now, but I think still adds to the information presented thus far.)

It is important for the debaters here to understand that Hispanic is not considered a race. The official position of the federal government (which regulates the schools) can be found here:

It says,
The revised standards will have five minimum categories for data on race: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. There will be two categories for data on ethnicity: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino."

As someone pointed out before: Asian is considered race, while Hispanic is considered ethnicity. It is logically possible to be both Asian and Hispanic. That is why many applications say "White, not of Hispanic origin" instead of just "White".

It will be impossible to determine if one thinks that BigTex should be considered Hispanic while one is making confused analogies concerning Asian Americans or any other race.

Based on the information that we currently have, School X should be publicly reprimanded in my opinion.

Regardless of BigTex's actions, School X did not perform their due diligence. If they had contacted BigTex directly early in their investigation, then their conclusions would be much more valid.

Again, I do not think the collection of the information was inappropriate, I think their actions afterward are the real problem.

I do not believe that the Internet is ambiguously public. It is public on its face, because access to the information is overtly and explicitly free of restrictions.

However, you are correct that the quality of the information on the internet is poor. That is why adcomms should investigate any information they find here. If they do not, then I would agree that it would be "indecent" of them.

This situation is not analogous to the state searching everyone’s homes. Homes are private, this is public.

If a law school is willing to perform due diligence when matching public information to applications, then there is not a problem. However, I seriously doubt most law schools are willing to go through the effort to verify all of the information that they find on LSN/LSD for all profiles. So, I don’t think that any school will every attempt to match 100% of all applicants to public information.

Matching the profiles is not a problem. Jumping to conclusions without investigating is a potential problem, though. However, we should not condemn the collection of the information itself. The problem is how they use it.

If Applicant Y claimed in their application that they got a 179 on the LSAT and the law schools did not corroborate this information, then we would all be outraged. It is the same issue here; if a law school found some information on the Internet and did not investigate, then we should all be upset.

Again, there is potential for abuse and misuse of information. But, the issue is not the collection of the information, it is the use of the information.

Imagine that you have published a book on social policy. You would want the adcomms to take the content of that public statement into account when reaching a decision. Your other public statements are also fair game. Like I said in your original post, just because you intend for some information to be private, does not mean that it is private.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15