Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success  (Read 12254 times)

Senior Belding

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2006, 03:25:15 PM »
Ive found any major (Engineering, econ, Philo) that predicates itself on logic and analytical skills helps with exam taking and exploring all possibilities.

I have also seen that History and english majors and any other "Regurgitative" majors do well also in classes where a porfessor is very hell bent on certain points. They tend to regurgitate and recipirocate that sentiment on exams and then hit that point.

The moral here? Business majors, you're screwed.  ;)

QUAKER OATS

  • Guest
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2006, 03:50:33 PM »
Ive found any major (Engineering, econ, Philo) that predicates itself on logic and analytical skills helps with exam taking and exploring all possibilities.

I have also seen that History and english majors and any other "Regurgitative" majors do well also in classes where a porfessor is very hell bent on certain points. They tend to regurgitate and recipirocate that sentiment on exams and then hit that point.

The moral here? Business majors, you're screwed.  ;)


I think Accounting could be useful

sanctimonious

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2007, 07:35:54 PM »

I was a poli sci major (useless), but took some interest in econ and philo, and that's the stuff I find to resonate the most in law school. The only thing that came in handy from poli sci was game theory.


Game theory appears to be interesting stuff. One challenge took place in Washington, DC. 6 pairs of strangers in 6 different locations around the city were given these instructions: There is another pair of people looking for you. Find them. Without any other information, such as a name or a photograph to go on, this task would seem to amount to finding the proverbial needle in a haystack. But each pair of strangers put themselves in the shoes of the others and thought about well-known landmarks they might go to. Nearly all of the pairs eventually zeroed in on the same target -- the Washington Monument. Can I think about what you're thinking that I'll do?

The second challenge was created to show how game theory can not only predict what someone will do, but how it also can influence behavior -- in this case, how it can motivate weight loss. A competition is created in which two teams of people who want to lose weight are pitted against each other to see who could lose more. Each team member to lose 15 lbs. in two months would earn a point for the team; the team with the most points wins. Each team was given a different motivation for losing the weight. Team 1, staff members from the R.C. Bigelow Tea Company in Fairfield, CT, were motivated through positive reinforcement. They were told to lose weight in order to feel better and be healthy, and to do it through teamwork. Team 2, staff members from the Bridgeport Bluefish, a minor league baseball team in neighboring Bridgeport, CT, were motivated through negative reinforcement, specifically, the fear of public humiliation. Before the challenge began, the team members agreed to be photographed in skimpy bikinis. Any team member who didn't meet the weight loss goal would have his or her photo displayed on the JumboTron in the baseball stadium during a game. In game theory, this is known as a credible threat.

It was predicted that the Bridgeport Bluefish team would win. If they missed by a pound, it would be up on the screen, and so they're going to overshoot. Many on the Bluefish team did exceed the 15-lbs weight loss goal, but in the end, the team from Bigelow Tea won 8-6. In game theory, positive incentives can be just as powerful as a credible threat.

lmam

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2007, 10:56:04 AM »
sanctimonus, game theory is also used more generally to analyze altruism and cooperation by rational self-interested individuals. Many games, especially the prisoner's dilemma, are used to illustrate ideas in political science and ethics. A major center for the development of game theory was RAND Corporation where it helped to define nuclear strategies. Game theory has recently drawn attention from computer scientists because of its use in artificial intelligence and cybernetics.

Eg


Friend or Foe?

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Never learned the most important lesson of all -- Futility!
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2007, 02:28:06 PM »
sanctimonus, game theory is also used more generally to analyze altruism and cooperation by rational self-interested individuals. Many games, especially the prisoner's dilemma, are used to illustrate ideas in political science and ethics. A major center for the development of game theory was RAND Corporation where it helped to define nuclear strategies. Game theory has recently drawn attention from computer scientists because of its use in artificial intelligence and cybernetics.

Eg




Right on, Imam -- Players soon discover that best play leads to a draw, regardless of where the first player plays. Hence, tic-tac-toe is most often played by very young children; when they have discovered an unbeatable strategy they move on to more sophisticated games such as dots and boxes. This reputation for ease has led to casinos offering gamblers the chance to play tic-tac-toe against trained chickens. Speaking of chickens, the game of chicken, models two drivers, both headed for a single lane bridge from opposite directions. The first to swerve away yields the bridge to the other. As they approach each other, mutual destruction becomes more and more imminent. If one of them swerves from the white line before the other, the other, as he passes, shouts 'Chicken!', and the one who has swerved becomes an object of contempt. If neither player swerves, the result is a costly deadlock in the middle of the bridge, or a potentially fatal head-on collision. It is presumed that the best thing for each driver is to stay straight while the other swerves (since the other is the "chicken" while a crash is avoided). Additionally, a crash is presumed to be the worst outcome for both players. This yields a situation where each player, in attempting to secure his best outcome, risks the worst. The game has also been used to describe the mutually assured destruction of nuclear warfare.

syn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Never learned the most important lesson of all -- Futility!
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2007, 06:50:52 PM »

[...] The game has also been used to describe the mutually assured destruction of nuclear warfare.


The inventors of M.A.D. did not believe in the stability of mutual deterrence, describing the concept as "a dangerous fallacy" and "a tremendous disservice." One of them wrote, "I suggest that the so called atomic 'stalemate' or 'standoff' is more of a psychological than a real deterrent. At best it is a cliché born of the natural tendency to rationalize away the prospects of total atomic war." The perennial argument that we must modernize because others will whether we do so or not ignores the historical fact that it was the U.S. that was first to develop or conceive every major innovation in the nuclear arms race. We developed the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the neutron bomb, and the multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle warhead. We were also the first to deploy long-range strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, sea-launched ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. We continue to innovate with the B-2 and its new weapons. If the rest of the world has done anything, it is to try to play catch-up ball in a game that cannot be won. The notion that the Soviets tried to acquire nuclear superiority and in the process accelerated the demise of their economy is a Pyrrhic victory given the missile threat we still face, and the inevitable proliferation of nuclear weapons into unstable terrorists' hands.

thorc954

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2007, 07:04:23 PM »
Math... very helpful.  okay, not really. 

If I could do it all over again, I would have done physical education for my undergrad.  That way, I would have a useless degree, but I would have enjoyed undergrad.

Möbius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Never learned the most important lesson of all -- Futility!
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2007, 09:21:08 PM »

Right on, Imam -- Players soon discover that best play leads to a draw, regardless of where the first player plays. Hence, tic-tac-toe is most often played by very young children; when they have discovered an unbeatable strategy they move on to more sophisticated games such as dots and boxes. This reputation for ease has led to casinos offering gamblers the chance to play tic-tac-toe against trained chickens. Speaking of chickens, the game of chicken, models two drivers, both headed for a single lane bridge from opposite directions. The first to swerve away yields the bridge to the other. As they approach each other, mutual destruction becomes more and more imminent. If one of them swerves from the white line before the other, the other, as he passes, shouts 'Chicken!', and the one who has swerved becomes an object of contempt. If neither player swerves, the result is a costly deadlock in the middle of the bridge, or a potentially fatal head-on collision. It is presumed that the best thing for each driver is to stay straight while the other swerves (since the other is the "chicken" while a crash is avoided). Additionally, a crash is presumed to be the worst outcome for both players. This yields a situation where each player, in attempting to secure his best outcome, risks the worst. The game has also been used to describe the mutually assured destruction of nuclear warfare.


It appears that in the game theory the assumption of common knowledge of rationality for the players is fundamental ...

Jhuen_the_bird

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
    • View Profile
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2007, 01:35:09 AM »
Being an English major helped a lot, because you are already accustomed to having lots of reading, and the analytical process is quite similar.  Also, I don't care what they say, legal writing is NOT that different from analytical writing as an English major.

s u n d a y

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: philosophy, politics, or economics major and law school success
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2007, 12:53:22 AM »

Right on, Imam -- Players soon discover that best play leads to a draw, regardless of where the first player plays. Hence, tic-tac-toe is most often played by very young children; when they have discovered an unbeatable strategy they move on to more sophisticated games such as dots and boxes. This reputation for ease has led to casinos offering gamblers the chance to play tic-tac-toe against trained chickens. Speaking of chickens, the game of chicken, models two drivers, both headed for a single lane bridge from opposite directions. The first to swerve away yields the bridge to the other. As they approach each other, mutual destruction becomes more and more imminent. If one of them swerves from the white line before the other, the other, as he passes, shouts 'Chicken!', and the one who has swerved becomes an object of contempt. If neither player swerves, the result is a costly deadlock in the middle of the bridge, or a potentially fatal head-on collision. It is presumed that the best thing for each driver is to stay straight while the other swerves (since the other is the "chicken" while a crash is avoided). Additionally, a crash is presumed to be the worst outcome for both players. This yields a situation where each player, in attempting to secure his best outcome, risks the worst. The game has also been used to describe the mutually assured destruction of nuclear warfare.


Friend or Foe?, did you name yourself after the game show Friend or Foe? on Game Show Network, by now off the air? I absolutely abhorred that show... I mean, look at the way the choices made by the contestants were fashioned to lead to:

Both vote "Friend" -- Each player received half the winnings.
One votes "Friend," the other "Foe" -- The contestant voting "Foe" takes all the money.
Both vote "Foe" -- Neither player wins anything.