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 - hilljack

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 154 155 156 [157]
1561
Law School Admissions / Re: The predictbility of LSAT
« on: March 30, 2005, 07:29:20 PM »
Another thing to think about: people argue that when you can study for the LSAT and significantly increase your score, that shows that the testing is flawed, because it doesn't assess your raw innate ability.  I think this is mistaken.  First of all, EVERY possible type of test will have this problem, because you can study for all types of tests.  Second of all, it does show something when someone studies and improves their score to the best of their ability: it shows that they can prepare for and ace a standardized test.  These types of people probably will be able to prepare for and ace other types of tests, including real life "tests" that you find in legal work.  I would venture to guess that they same people that figured out how to prep for the LSAT and aced it would be able to figure out how to prep for their first trial/deal and ace that, too.

now that is a good point for the most part which is why I have said all along that there is some use to the LSAT the way it is (though arguably the LSAT could be more useful if tweaked). There is a catch though. Priviliged people, like many of us, can afford a lot of outside help that non-priviliged can't (i.e. Testmasters). I took TM myself! If you believe these courses help substantially more for MOST people than going it alone, like I do, than we have a huge advantage in our parents/trustfund/etc.

I may have been on par with that inner-city, fought his way out of the ghetto, URM before... but I can destroy him/her on the LSAT now since my parents dished out $1400 for testmasters while he/she could only afford a couple of cheap books.

Sad, but a reality.

I think the reason some people argue the LSAT is flawed because it is prep-able is because ideally GPA measures work ethic while the prep-test measures raw logical ability. In practice, LSAT is starting to measure both work ethic and raw ability (in my opinion) since it employs so much preparation as well as the limits of your ability in speed, accuracy, and logic (if you are fast enough to finish).

A couple points on what you said:

1. I don't think that a class helps; my mom told me she would pay for anything I needed, I got a couple books that were a waste and the three preptest packets (20 dollars a peice on Amazon)

2. How would changing the format change the supposed advantage of these 1400 dollar classes

3. And the final point I would like to make is about this idea that so many applicants have trust funds or come from wealthy families.  Maybe it's because I grew up in the hills, but most people I know who have excelled in ug/law school are not silver spoons; they are upper middle class perhaps and ussually have at least one educated parent.  Spoiled children, in my experience have little drive, but that is my opinion from the few trust fund kids I knew growing up.

1562
Quote
This whole idea of jumping around to different sections while taking the LSAT is unbelievably stupid.

Take a look at any preptest and notice the oversized letters printed across the top of the page.  Those are put there so that the proctors can instantly tell, at a distance, whether you are working on the correct section or not.

Proctors are lazzy asses and do not actually circulate around the room to monitor people! The only problem would be the bum next to you that might talk ..


If I see someone cheating on the LSAT, I will gleefully report them.

1563
Studying for the LSAT / How hard can it be to find a timer?
« on: March 30, 2005, 07:03:15 PM »
Apparantly pretty hard for me; I have tried Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City.

Where can I get a reliable, silent, digital count-down timer.  Preferably what store, but if not, where online?

1564
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LSAT and girlfriend/boyfriend's?
« on: March 30, 2005, 02:41:21 PM »
Dude, if you're worried about the one or two months you'll be studying for the LSAT busting up your relationship... what about LAW SCHOOL?

Oh, I am definitely not planning to have a gf during law school. That would be crazy. Law school is Fall 2006 though, so who knows what will happen with us till then.

That would not be crazy, people w/ wife and kids do fine in law school

If you can't handle a relationship in law school, how do you manage one while working 70 hour weeks, which is the kind of week that people who put in a lot of time in law school will often work.

1565

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.

1566
Law School Admissions / Re: Thank you all for this information
« on: March 29, 2005, 05:39:33 PM »
Quote

Yes, moi!
Quote

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

1567
Law School Admissions / Thank you all for this information
« on: March 29, 2005, 05:15:13 PM »
But does anyone know the stats on students from mediocre schools/majors getting into T14 law schools?

1568

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.

1569
*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.


1570
Law School Admissions / How do good students get dinged
« on: March 28, 2005, 09:20:36 PM »
So here are my questions:

1.Where does a bland applicant need to score to have a good chance at a particular school (top 75th percentile?)
2.Do good students (3.75+/170+) have any chance of not being accepted to any T14 school so long as they have decent LOR/PS
3.What are the characteristics of good students who get dinged (criminal record? easy major? Republicanism? peeing in the shower?)

I know that some students with good numbers get rejected at schools they should seemingly get into; I think I fit that profile.  I am a non-joining, non-URM, at a mediocre state school, in an easy major.  Sure, I am first in my class, and I am already practicing my LSAT above 170, but is that good enough for say Chicago, UVA, Penn?

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 154 155 156 [157]