Law School Discussion

Quote from: hilljack on March 29, 2005, 07:12:30 PM

Quote from: sunseed on March 29, 2005, 04:56:49 PM

Yes, we are discussing now. I think the most unreasonable one is too tight time limit.

Law is a very profound discipline which demands deep thinking. But too little time only make students adapting to it by all means which in turn lowered the quality of real thinking and confuse the process of talents picking.

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, of course not correlated with detailed law since we havenot yet studied. Just analylize critically. Then the writing test should be scored and the length and width of writing should be extended.

I will follow up if get any further thoughts. But by the way, can we really change it?

I think you may be missing the point of the LSAT, its purpose is to measure a student's ability to survive and thrive in law school.  Not to see how good a person will be at the practice of law.

I think that most people beleive that a person who thinks slowly will have trouble in law school; because all serious law students spend a majority of their time on the study of law, the ones who think slowly will generally be left behind; as will those w/o logical skills, reading comp. skills and all the skills Napolean has.

And as for your mockery of Jesus and religion in general, I feel sorry for you.

adding a little more time would not allow people to think slowly and still succeed, it just not demand lightning speed as quickly (how often is law of lightning speed anyway?)

I am not sure of the practice in speaking and debating either, alot of lawyers do no such thing (read: patent law).

As for last comment, I am mocking today's idea of jesus (in no way religion in general or the historical jesus). If you care see below link for a more detailed commentary, you may find it interesting.
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,29235.msg435870.html#msg435870

I don't find it to be lightning quick, I tend to finish my practice tests w/ anywhere b/t 4-8 minutes to spare.

Your second point obviously had nothing to do w/ what i said

and i am not terribly interested in your opinion of historical Jesus v. contempo Jesus, just knowing that you did not intend to mock the Savior makes me feel better for you.

Yes, moi!

What a well thought of response, you must be the kid who still wears a beret to parties.

But does anyone know the stats on students from mediocre schools/majors getting into T14 law schools?

*sigh*

here we go again...


1.  AA was not designed to allow unqualified applicants into schools and jobs over qualified ones.  It was designed to keep qualified minorities from being excluded for being a non-white male.

2.  IF AA has been distorted it has been distored by the people enforcing it.

3.  It is not reverse discrimination.  Non-minorities are not being systematically excluded from admssions and jobs.  If there was discrimination we would see a decrease in non-minority representation in schools and the workforce while seeing a significant increase in minorities.

4.  People on this board and in general assume, incorrectly, that if i minority applicant gets in over a non-minority applicant he/she is benefinting from AA and is less qualified than the non-minority.  People speaking out against AA focus will not ackowledge the fact that it was not their intellectual abilitities that kept minorities on the outskirts of the american dream, it was ystem wide discrimination for years.

5.  No matter what u think law schools do look at other things besides numbers (NU comes to mind).

6.  Minorities aren't taking "YOUR" seats b/c a seat at ur first choice or any law school is not gauranteed.

7.  Minorities are pulling in numbers equal to or higher than urs.

8.  Basing AA on socio-economic status alone will not work.  In a system prone to discrimination what would happen is a situation that would lead once again to a situation where minorities will be excluded because of race.  If u could satisfy AA by excepting only poor non-minorities, based on history, we will see a decrease in the representation of minorities on college campuses and in the workforce.  there needs to be a way to use socio-economic status and URM status together without sacrificing one or the other.

9.  LET THE ATTACKS BEGIN!!!

1. This is true, AA was intended to eliminate discrimination
2. By the left-wingers in American LSs, no way
3. Not true, only a blind person cannot see that minorities, for better or worse are given preferensial treatment.  I is imposible to give one group pref. treatment and not discriminate against those who do not get it.
4. It was not, but other people on this board will not admit that minorities are given a boost in the admission process know. And by other people I might be refering to you.
5. That is true, NU prefers students who are not straight out of UG.  Law schools look at other things.  The main other thing is URM status.  Although being published, having WE and other things can help, but that is off the subject.
6. The point here is that a student who has not proven himself to the extent that "YOUR" has should not get in 'over' said "YOUR."  That is if you beleive in a meritocracy.  Or in other words if you beleive that no one should be denied something bc of skin color/ethnicity
7. Good, then there is no reason to even concider race, we will have a proportional 1L class w/o it.
8. Are you kidding me, yes Yale is a racist school with racist adcomms, so is Colombia and Berkely.  Damn racists are only admitting blacks and hispanics because of AA.  And if AA is based on socio-economic status, they will get the white-bread class they have always wanted.  The "u" you are refering to are the people who decide how many minorities they want to admit.  They have no legal responsibility to admit underqualified students and they do it anyway.
9. I hope you do not see this as an attack and I appoligize for any sarcasm or if I misinterpreted what you said or if what I said is unclear.  Obviously it is a complex issue and a few points cannot accurately portray one side or the other.