If more than LSDers read these threads, why not unleash all that cognitive power

[Fernando]

Frequently I encounter threads containing what amount to gripes and moans about LSAT scores and UGPA numbers and how adcomms should not only utilize such numbers when scrutinizing a given application. Ok maybe some of the explanations for under par numbers are legitimate. That issue is not the crux of the matter here. Instead, and this is based on past LSD threads, don’t you think that LSD is a good venue to strut your stuff, display your cognitive abilities, demonstrate writing that is worth labeling “law school prose”--or darn close enough to morph into it--, etc., in order to have officials from big committees read for themselves what you are really made of, “numbers” notwithstanding?

Hypothetically: what if officials read these threads to measure borderline cases? What if borderline cases aren’t the only reason for surfing within LSD?

If officials aren’t reading these threads, they might benefit from doing so by measuring a candidate’s Rationality in Action.

[Fernando]

On second thought, it’s not like you need to write about a fact pattern and relate relevant legal precedents, civil codes, ordinances, etc. It’s not like you need to know specific law, e.g., the California Codes of Civil Procedure on attorney work product. That’s the purpose of law school! If you already know the law in a given sub-field, more power to you. You’re ahead of the game.   



Assuming that “the big and mighty changers of destiny” read these threads, and let’s say you cared, you think one would amplify the quality of expression.

If the officials don’t read these threads, maybe we should invite them to do so for the very reason I stated in the above posting. 

   

[Fernando]

Do you think a dissertation on executive power during a time of war would be an impressive piece of work for adcomm officials to read? Do you think if one narrows the scope, say, to the present administration one would gain recognition as one that may bloom in law school?

[lil_token]

Do you think a dissertation on executive power during a time of war would be an impressive piece of work for adcomm officials to read? Do you think if one narrows the scope, say, to the present administration one would gain recognition as one that may bloom in law school?

Still seems too broad to me.  What do you have in mind for a thesis?

[Fernando]

The significance of the meaning of “enemy combatant” and it’s role in executive policy, in the broad sense, i.e., domestic and foreign policy.   

Do you think a dissertation on executive power during a time of war would be an impressive piece of work for adcomm officials to read? Do you think if one narrows the scope, say, to the present administration one would gain recognition as one that may bloom in law school?

Still seems too broad to me.  What do you have in mind for a thesis?

[lil_token]

The significance of the meaning of “enemy combatant” and it’s role in executive policy, in the broad sense, i.e., domestic and foreign policy.   

Do you think a dissertation on executive power during a time of war would be an impressive piece of work for adcomm officials to read? Do you think if one narrows the scope, say, to the present administration one would gain recognition as one that may bloom in law school?

Still seems too broad to me.  What do you have in mind for a thesis?

If you limit it to the enemy combatant issue, you should be fine.  Although be careful, as any exploration of a definition in a thesis is potentially overbroad.  My committee ate me alive when I handed in my first couple of proposals, so I comiserate with your struggles.  Good luck with it.

[Fernando]

The significance of the meaning of “enemy combatant” and it’s role in executive policy, in the broad sense, i.e., domestic and foreign policy.   

Do you think a dissertation on executive power during a time of war would be an impressive piece of work for adcomm officials to read? Do you think if one narrows the scope, say, to the present administration one would gain recognition as one that may bloom in law school?

Still seems too broad to me.  What do you have in mind for a thesis?

If you limit it to the enemy combatant issue, you should be fine.  Although be careful, as any exploration of a definition in a thesis is potentially overbroad.  My committee ate me alive when I handed in my first couple of proposals, so I comiserate with your struggles.  Good luck with it.

Thanks for sharing!

Well, I know that committees of various sorts are quick to pigeonhole dissertations, especially when founded upon a definition, because of the easy attack upon the necessary and sufficient condition front. So one would need to include some sort of semantic theory as a presupposition to justify the central thesis, something like a Wittgensteinian analysis of meaning. But fundamentally, the dissertation does not turn upon some analysis of definition but rather upon the functional use of the term within the administration’s policy, with a contrasting remark, laid-out in a later chapter, comparing traditional terminology used to refer to enemy personnel in the Geneva conventions.   The analysis would bear an argument to the effect that legal experts have semantically twisted talk about enemy forces into terms suitable to evade commitment to the Geneva conventions. 

[Fernando]

Why, all this is legitimate! Our executive was recently in Europe buttressing the conception of “the rule of law.” It need not take an URM to point out that that law involves semantic interpretation.   

[Fernando]

Though it must be said that one should not personify the law. Doing so is to talk about the law along the lines of some philosophical construct like Leviathan, but not necessarily.   

[Fernando]

If you must, then I suppose we can permit such talk for the sake of conversation!